He killed tuda = He killed himself. I saw tuda in the mirror = I saw myself in the mirror. To precisely indicate person and number, "-tu-" can be added to an appropriate personal pronoun, as is done in English, although this is never necessary since the result must ALWAYS refer to the subject of the verb. [We'll discuss the derivation of personal pronouns later, in the section on _deictics_.] The adjective form "tuno" can represent the English word "own", as in the following: He killed tuno mother = He killed his own mother. I wanted tuno business = I wanted my own business. OR = I wanted a business of my own. Reflexive "-tu-" is unusual among voice-changing CCMs in that it actually provides the argument for the slot it fills; i.e., the argument it represents is identical to the subject. Because of this, we are adopting the convention that when "-tu-" is part of the verb or modifies the verb as an adverb, it will fill the appropriate argument of the verb and delete it from the argument structure. When used as other parts-of-speech, it will refer back to the subject, but will not actually delete the argument slot of the verb. Thus, the following two sentences are identical in meaning: He killed tuda = He killed himself. He killed tupe = He killed himself. But the following are NOT identical (where 'to teach' = A/P/F-d): He taught tuda John = He taught himself about John. He taught tupe John OR He taught John tupe = He taught John about himself. [The syntax of the AL will determine which word order is appropriate for the second example. In the sample language, either order is acceptable.] In other words, "tuda" fills whatever slot it appears in without changing the argument structure of the verb, while "tupe" always deletes and replaces the LAST argument, no matter where it appears, exactly as if "-tu-" had been affixed directly to the verb. Finally, English often uses "self" in ways that are not truly reflexive. For example, words like "self-discovery" and "self- satisfaction" are essentially idiomatic, and the reflexive CCM "-tu-", does NOT capture these meanings. Others, such as "self-ignition", imply that something happens automatically, with NO apparent agent. These can be implemented using the basic P-d version of the verb. Also, expressions such as "he himself" are emphatics - and NOT true reflexives. [We'll discuss how to derive emphatics later.] -bo- Reciprocal CCM In a reciprocal construction, the subject performs the roles of both subject and object. Most reciprocal constructions in English use a plural or compound subject and the phrase "each other" as the object, as in "They punched each other". Some verbs, however, are inherently reciprocal, and we will use the "-bo-" CCM to create them. Thus, this CCM will change the argument structure of a verb from X/Y-x to X=Y-x or from X/Y/Z-x to X=Y/Z-x. (Note the use of "=" in the notation "X=Y-x". This is necessary since the semantics of reciprocal XY is different from the semantics of normal XY.) Here are some examples: P/F-s: "masi" - 'to be in a relationship with', 'to be involved with', 'to have something to do with' P=F-s "mabosi" = 'to mutually/reciprocally experience an unspecified state', 'to have an unspecified association/relationship with each other' "maboda" = 'correlatives' (i.e., things which have an unspecified relationship or association with each other) "mabovesi" = 'association', 'relationship', ["-ve-" = quality CCM] "mabopasi" = 'a mutual/reciprocal experience' ["-pa-" = process CCM] "mabopano" = 'mutual/reciprocal' P/F-s "mesi" = 'to be located at/in' P=F-s "mebosi" = 'to be together' "mebope" = 'together' P/F-s "menasi" = 'to not be located at', 'to be away from' P=F-s "menabosi" = 'to be apart' "menabope" = 'separately' P/F-d "medosi" = 'to come to' P=F-d "medobosi" = 'to come together (locative sense)', 'to meet' P/F-d "menadosi" = 'to become located away from" P=F-d "menadobosi" = 'to come apart' AP/F-d "mesuasi" = 'to reach/arrive at' AP=F-d "mesuabosi" = 'to get together' "mesuabopada" = 'a get together' AP/F-d "menasuasi" = 'to leave/depart', 'to go from' AP=F-d "menasuabosi" = 'to split up' Here are a few English examples: AP/F-d 'to join' AP=F-d 'to gather/assemble', 'to come together' A/P-p 'to argue/quarrel with' A=P-p 'to argue/quarrel' A/P/F-p 'to speak about' A=P/F-p 'to converse/talk about', 'to have a conversation about' AP/F-s 'to agree/disagree with' AP=F-s 'to agree/disagree' We can use the generic noun "boda" to represent the English phrase "each other" or "one another" when we need to apply the concept in a non-verbal form. For example, "They stole each other's money", where "each other's" would be either "boxano", or "mabie boda". Note that "-bo-" is like reflexive "-tu-" in that it actually provides the argument for the slot it fills. Because of this, we can use it as an affix or in root position in exactly the same way we used "-tu-". Thus, "boda" will fill whatever slot it appears in without changing the argument structure of the verb, while "bope" will delete and replace the second argument, no matter where it appears, exactly as if "-bo-" had been affixed directly to the verb. Finally, it may also be useful to have a reciprocal CCM that equates the patient and the focus of an A/P/F verb; i.e. A/P/F -> A/P=F. For this purpose, I will use the CCM "-pasku-". For example, the generic A/P/F-d verb "kosi" meaning 'to change something with respect to something else', would become "kopaskusi" meaning 'to re-arrange'. At the moment, though, I can't think of any other examples. -vua- CCM to make all arguments of a verb oblique It will be useful to have a CCM for a voice change that strips all arguments from a verb but makes them obliquely expressable. This CCM will be most useful in various kinds of greetings. Here's an example (we will use the speech act root "-jandoya-" to represent the meaning 'congratulate', default class A/P/F-p): A/P/F-p: "jandoyasi=jandoyaniosi" = 'to congratulate on' e.g. I congratulated him on his victory. 0-p [+A] [+P] [+F]: "jandoyavuasi" = 'congratulations' e.g. Congratulations! Congratulations from all of us! Congratulations to the newlyweds! Congratulations on your great success! where the case tag "from" introduces an oblique agent, "to" introduces an oblique patient, and "on" introduces an oblique focus. Note that, although "congratulations" is morphologically a noun in English, it is clearly being used as a speech act verb. This CCM would also be useful with verbs such as 'to greet', 'to bless/curse', 'to shame', 'to thank', 'to apologize', 'to welcome', etc. 5.1 THE GENERAL NEGATOR "-na-" The morpheme "-na-", meaning 'not' or 'other than' is considered a class- changing morpheme because it creates an entity or state that is completely different from what it modifies. Thus, it can change the entity or state so much that it is no longer in the same class (cf. 'mammal' vs. 'non-mammal'). Now, to be truly useful, we must also be able to modify concepts that are more complex than simple roots. For example, 'to become not-at-a-place' and 'not to become-at-a-place' are completely different concepts. The first means essentially 'to leave' while the second means 'not to arrive'. Here's a more complete example: AP/F-d verb "me-sua-si: to cause oneself to become 'at' a location = to arrive AP/F-d noun "me-sua-da": one who causes himself to become 'at' a location = arriver Verb with negated root "me-na-sua-si": to cause oneself to become (other than 'at') a location = to depart/leave Noun with negated root "me-na-sua-da": one who causes himself to become (other than 'at') a location = departer Verb with negated root+classifier "me-sua-na-si": other than (to cause oneself to become 'at' a location) = not to arrive Noun with negated root+classifier "me-sua-na-da": other than (one who causes himself to become 'at' a location) = non-arriver In the last two examples, we modified the combination of root PLUS classifier (normally referred to as a _stem_). Thus, since the morphology of the sample language is right-branching, the modifier had to be placed after the classifier. For basic nouns, modifying the root BEFORE applying the classifier can result in a noun that has nothing in common with the unmodified noun. Here are some derivations that illustrate this point: guamoda -> "water mammal" -> cetacean guasuda -> "water bird" -> duck guanamoda -> "non-water mammal" -> camel (???) guanasuda -> "non-water bird" -> vulture (???) guamonada -> non-cetacean guasunada -> non-duck guanamonada -> non-camel guanasunada -> non-vulture Now, let's do some additional derivations using "-na-": P/F-s "lundape" = 'before' (case tag) "lundanape" = 'at or after' P-s "lundasepe" = 'already', 'earlier', 'in the past' "lundanasepe" OR "lundasenape" = 'not earlier = now and later', 'from now on' A/P-d "benzosi=benzopusi" = 'to close' "benzonapusi" = 'to open' [Note that "-na-" must precede the classifier to obtain the sense 'to cause to be not-closed'. If it followed "-pu-", it would simply mean 'to not close' or 'to do something other than close'.] P-s "guaseno" = 'liquid' (adjective) "guanaseno" OR "guasenano" = 'non-liquid' P-s "veyaseno" = 'real', 'existent' "veyanaseno" OR "veyasenano" = 'nonexistent', 'fictitious/imaginary', 'not real' P-d "veyanapiano" = 'extinct', 'no longer real or existent' P-d [+A] "veyanapununo" = 'annihilated', 'wiped out' A/P-s "zoyasi" = 'to keep/maintain' "nazoyasi" = 'to prevent/preclude' Basic Noun "zioda" = 'insect' "zionada" = 'non-insect' (adjective) And so forth. Note how "-na-" can be used either after the root or after the classifier in the "-s" verbal derivations with little change in meaning. This should not be surprising since the "-s" derivations are just morphologically complete versions of the state concept. However, in the "-d" and basic noun derivations the placement of the modifier is critical. Still, even in the "-s" derivations, the placement of the MCM does have an effect on the meaning. Consider the following: guanasesi -> to be non-liquid guasenasi -> to not be liquid If the root is modified, it implies that the INHERENT state is negated. If the root+classifier is modified, it implies that the CURRENT state is negated. Thus, modifying the root indicates a more permanent or natural condition, while modifying the root+classifier indicates a temporary and potentially changeable situation. Thus, the derivations using the root "-veya-" meaning 'real or existent' are more accurately glossed as: P-s "veyaseno" = 'real', 'existent' "veyanaseno" = 'fictitious/imaginary', 'unreal' "veyasenano" = 'nonexistent', 'not (currently) real' Thus, we may use the word "veyanaseno" for a unicorn, and the word "veyasenano" for a dinosaur, but not vice-versa. When used in generic state verbs, "-na-" will imply a non-relationship for "-s" verbs and a breaking-off of a relationship for "-d" verbs. For example, the P/F-s verb "masi" means 'to have something to do with'. Thus, "namasi" means 'to have nothing to do with'. The AP/F-d verb "suasi" means 'to change' in the sense that the subject is entering a new relationship with the focus. Thus, the negative form "nasuasi" has the sense 'to break off', 'to leave', 'to give up', 'to quit', and so on, as in "He gave up his membership" or "He left the partnership". Keep in mind that generic verbs do not specify the nature of the relationship. Thus, the unspecified relationship can be ANYTHING: social, mental, locative, or even temporal. [Incidentally, English seems to have many periphrastic, metaphoric, and even idiomatic expressions that cover the meaning of "nasuasi". However, I was pleased to recently discover that another language, Swahili, has the single verb root "acha" that seems to precisely cover all of the semantic space of the verb "nasuasi". It is also an extremely common word in Swahili, and is used in many compounds and periphrastic expressions.] 7.0 ROOTS AS MEANING-CHANGING MORPHEMES Most roots represent basic states, and it is often useful to allow a state to modify another state or entity. For example, if the root meaning 'like/ similar' could be used to modify the basic noun meaning 'duck', we could create a word meaning 'duck-like'. Fortunately, our morpho-semantic system is robust enough to allow roots to directly modify other roots. When used in this way, we will refer to the root as a _meaning-changing morpheme_ (henceforth MCM). Furthermore, any morpheme that is not being used as a root will be referred to as a _modifying morpheme_. Thus, modifying morphemes will include all roots that can be used as MCMs, all classifiers, and all CCMs. [Note that we do not consider terminators to be true morphemes, since their function is more syntactic than semantic. While this distinction may not be linguistically "correct", it is useful for our purposes.] Important Note: I will be using the abbreviation "MCM" extensively throughout the remainder of this monograph. Note that this definition is a functional one, not a morphological one. In effect, an MCM is any morpheme that is used to modify what it is suffixed to. To reflect this new usage, the morphology of the sample language will be simplified as follows: Word ::= { Morpheme } + Part-of-speech Morpheme ::= C D | C V { X } Part-of-speech ::= Terminator Terminator ::= da | di | giu | nia | bie | no | pe | si C = any consonant (p, b, t, d, k, g, c, j, l, m, n, f, v, s, z, x) D = any diphthong (ai, au, eu, ia, ie, io, iu, oi, ua, ue, ui, uo) V = any vowel (a, e, i, o, u) S = any semi-vowel (w, y) X = extension = S V | C C V | = logical 'or' {} = enclosed item may appear zero or more times Lower case letters represent themselves Note that the morphology no longer makes a distinction between roots, classifiers, and CCMs. Any morpheme or combination of morphemes may appear before a terminator, as long as the result is semantically acceptable. And, as we will discuss in the next section, it is even possible for terminators to appear alone. Now, let's look at some morphemes that can be used as either roots or MCMs. We already met one such root when we derived the manner case tag. This root was "-lo-" with the meaning 'like' or 'similar'. As an MCM suffixed to basic nouns, the adjective form will represent the English suffix "-like", as in "house-like", "ridge-like", or "bird-like", while the noun form would be equivalent to the English prefix "quasi-". When used with verbs, it will represent the English expression "sort of" or "kind of", as in "He kind of hopped into the house" or "He sort of cleaned his bedroom". Another useful MCM can represent the concept behind the English expressions "back" or "in return", as in "He shouted back at me" or "I gave her a kiss in return". For transitive verbs, it implies that a previous situation existed in which the current agent and a current non-agent had reversed roles. (The actual non-agentive argument is determined from context.) For intransitive verbs, it implies that the patient is returning to an earlier state. These derivations are probably not going to be useful with "-s" verbs. In the sample language, we will use the MCM "-sifne-". Here are some examples: A/P-d: "benzosi" = 'to close' "benzosifnesi" = 'to close in return' (E.g. "He closed my window so I closed his in return.") A/P/F-p: "jandoyasi" = 'to congratulate (on/for)' "jandoyasifnesi" = 'to congratulate back/in return' English examples: to give back to, to return to to shout back at to do (someone) a favor in return to throw (something) back to to come back to etc. As a verb root, "-sifne-" represents the action concept 'to do in return' (default class = AP-s). Thus, we can create the AP-s verb "sifnesi" meaning 'to reciprocate', the AP/F-s verb "sifnefisi" meaning 'to reciprocate by', and the stand-alone adverb "sifnepe" meaning 'back' or 'in return'. Note, though, that some English verbs are inherently reciprocating, as in "I returned (= gave back) the book to Joan". In the sample language, these verbs would be created by appending "-sifne-" after the verb classifier. Do not confuse "-sifne-" with the English word "again", which simply means 'one more time'. Note that "-sifne-" is similar to the reciprocal CCM "-bo-", which we discussed earlier, but is different in two important ways: first, it does not change the argument structure of the verb; and, second, it implies a sequential event, whereas the CCM "-bo-" implies simultaneity. Thus, the MCM changes the meaning of the word while the CCM changes the argument structure and provides a semantic link between the arguments. We can also create a useful combination of the two morphemes "-veya-", meaning 'real/existent', and "-na-", the basic negator. The result, "-veyana-", can be used as a suffix meaning 'not real' and is equivalent to the English prefix "pseudo-". Here's a short list of some more examples of concepts that could be easily implemented using additional root/MCMs: Concept English examples ------- ---------------- 'male' -> "stallion" from "horse" 'female' -> "mare" from "horse" 'neuter' -> "gelding" from "horse" 'artificial' -> all man-made-X's The list is intentionally short because I would like to discuss most of the important modifiers in greater detail and in the appropriate semantic context. I will do this in several sections of the remainder of this monograph. 8.0 SIMPLE GENERICS The simplest possible generic derivation consists of just a terminator. By its very nature, a pure generic like this can encompass any or all possible referents. Thus, when a speaker uses such a generic, he is implying that he either doesn't know the specific referent or is not willing to divulge it. In effect, the simplest generics perform a function that is similar to the impersonal constructions of English and other natural languages. Here are some of the more useful ones: Generic noun "da" - 'someone', 'something(s)', 'they' e.g. SOMEONE broke the window. THEY don't make cars like THEY used to. Billy just broke SOMETHING. Generic adjective "no" - 'some (kind of)' e.g. She's SOME KIND OF fortune teller. SOME jerk just blocked my car. Generic verb "si" - 'something's going on', 'something happened' e.g. SOMETHING'S GOING ON here. If he persists, SOMETHING's bound TO HAPPEN. [Note that since "si" does not specify an argument structure, it cannot have ANY core arguments, and may stand alone as a complete sentence. All arguments, if any, must be oblique.] Generic adverb "pe" - 'just...period', 'that's all', verb terminator (but without the implied rudeness or abruptness of the English expression 'just...period') e.g. I don't know what happened. He JUST left, PERIOD. [Here, "pe" simply indicates that more arguments of the verb are available (either core or oblique), but that the speaker either doesn't know or is not willing to divulge them.] Generic previous-word modifier "di" can be used to modify adjectives and adverbs. It would have meanings such as 'somehow', 'in some way or other' e.g. She was a pretty girl, SOMEHOW OR OTHER. He seemed to be an important person, SOMEHOW. [Here, English requires that "somehow (or other)" be a sentential adverb. In reality, it modifies the adjectives "pretty" and "important".] If we apply the negating CCM "-na-", the results are also very useful: "nada" - 'nobody', 'no one', 'nothing' "nano" - 'no' e.g. He's NO fool. "nasi" - 'nothing's going on', 'nothing happened' "nape" - similar to "pe", but emphasizes that there is NOTHING more to be said. "nadi" - 'nohow', 'in no way' 8.1 SLOT-FILLERS AND TERMINATORS In our sample language (as well as in many natural languages), verbs are marked to explicitly show their argument structure. Thus, for instance, a speaker will not normally use a verb that takes a focus unless he plans to provide a focus. In English, however, objects are often omitted, as in the following: John is eating vs. John is eating a sandwich. Bill told a joke vs. Bill told the kids a joke. There will be times, though, when a speaker wishes to emphasize that an argument is being intentionally omitted. In our sample language, the basic generics "pe" and "da" allow us to do this. The generic "da" fills a SINGLE empty slot in the argument structure of the verb, while generic "pe" completely terminates the verb, allowing no more arguments, even oblique arguments. English impersonal pronouns are equivalent to "da", and the English expression "that's all" captures some of the meaning of "pe". Incidentally, some natural languages achieve a similar termination effect by using explicit open/close morphemes that are very reminiscent of parentheses. Here's an example from Malagasy: ity trano fotsy ity this house white this 'this white house' There are also many languages, such as Persian (Iran), Yoruba (West Africa), and Hewa (Papua New Guinea), that bracket their relative clauses with explicit start and end morphemes. Although this may seem unnecessary and even redundant, it can be useful at times to prevent ambiguity. In our sample language, however, there is no need to create such morphemes, since "da" and "pe" can be used as terminators when needed. 9.0 POLARITY This section is basically about the derivation of words that are most commonly referred to as "opposites" or "antonyms". However, I'm going to extend the semantics somewhat to make the system as productive as possible, and will use the term "polarity" to refer to the semantics of this system. We've already had some exposure to the concept of polarity when we used the CCM "-na-", meaning 'not' or 'other than'. This morpheme can, in fact, be used to create true opposites, but only for state concepts that can have only an "either/or" interpretation. I will refer to these as _binary_ states. Here are some English examples: open -> close = become 'not open' attach -> detach = become 'not attached' recall -> forget = become 'not in-memory' enter -> exit = become 'not inside' zip -> unzip = become 'not zipped' real -> imaginary = be 'not real' same -> different = be 'not the same' In other words, for binary states, anything that is 'not X' is by definition 'the opposite of X'. And since the CCM "-na-" basically means 'other than', it can also be used to create other kinds of binary oppositions, such as "non-American", "non-mammal", "non-believer", and so on. In effect, they contrast members of a well-defined group with everything that is not part of the group. (In fact, the result may not even be in the same class, which is why "-na-" is a CCM rather than an MCM). In other words, these constructions do not tell us what their referents ARE - they only tell us what their referents are NOT. However, this distinction is not useful for our purposes, and we will treat all of the above oppositions as 'binary'. When suffixed to state verbs (AFTER the classifier), the CCM "-na-" indictates that the state does not currently exist or apply, and often has the sense of the English suffix "-less". For example, "living" + "-na-" = 'lifeless', "weighing" + "-na-" = 'weightless', and so on. Also, note in the previous paragraph that the word "non-believer" is derived from the focused state concept; i.e., from the P/F-s verb. In order to obtain the concept of 'beliefless', as in "a beliefless individual", we would start with the P-s verb. However, the English morpheme "-less" can also be used to mean 'not possessing' or 'bereft of', as in "penniless". The CCM "-na-" does NOT have this sense! In addition to binary concepts, there are concepts that can cover a range of states, such as 'torrid/hot/warm/lukewarm/cool/chilly/cold/frigid'. These concepts are _scalar_ and can take on more than two values. However, natural languages almost never make minor distinctions such as between "cold" and "cool" or between "warm" and "hot" with completely different words. Instead, modifiers are normally used, as in "heavy" vs. "very heavy" vs. "not too heavy", etc. Also, when a language does make such a distinction using unique words, it is rare to find other languages that make the same distinction. For example, the Arabic word "baarid" can mean either 'cool', 'chilly', OR 'cold'. Expressions meaning 'very', 'not too' and so on are used to provide greater detail when needed. Summarizing the above, there are basically 2 types of opposites: 1. Binary opposites Examples: real vs. imaginary closed vs. open Chinese vs. non-Chinese member vs. non-member 2. Scalar opposites Examples: hot vs. warm vs. cool vs. cold gigantic vs. large vs. small vs. tiny bright vs. light vs. dim vs. dark vs. pitch black We can conceptualize a binary concept as consisting of two opposing semantic spaces. Anything that is not in one MUST be in the other: --------- --------- | | | | | + | | - | | | | | --------- --------- The 'sizes' of the above semantic spaces can be different, with one often being significantly 'larger' than the other. For example, consider a closed door versus a fully open, partly open, or slightly open door. A scalar concept consists of unique, non-overlapping semantic spaces on a line: ------------------------------------------------------------------- | | | | | | | | ... | +3 | +2 | +1 | 0 | -1 | -2 | -3 | ... | | | | | | | | ------------------------------------------------------------------- Here, the "0" position could be paraphrased as "neither X nor Y", as in "neither hot nor cold". As we've already seen, binary opposites can be implemented with the CCM "-na-". For scalar opposites, however, we cannot use "-na-" since it means 'other than'. For example, "other than hot" does not necessarily mean 'cold'. It could also mean 'scalding', 'warm', 'lukewarm', 'cool', and so on. In other words, it means anything outside the range of temperatures indicated by the word "hot". So, how do we deal with scalar states? In the sample language, we will create four special MCMs that can provide additional detail. These will hardly ever be needed, since most people will prefer to use external modifiers such as "very", "not too", "hardly", etc. But there will be times when these concepts will be needed in word derivations. Here are the MCMs that we will use in the sample language: -pi- 'maximally', 'extremely' -ge- 'very', 'highly' -so- 'not too', 'not very' -ju- 'minimally', 'barely', 'hardly' In addition, we will assume that the semantic space of "-pi-" is a subset of the semantic space of "-ge-", and that the semantic space of "-ju-" is a subset of the semantic space of "-so-". We'll see examples of this below. Note that these are MCMs, not CCMs like "-na-"! The result is always within the same class as the item that is modified. Using the above, we could start with the words "xauno" meaning 'hot' and create words such as "xaupino" = 'torrid', "xausono" = 'warm', and "xaujuno" = 'lukewarm/tepid'. The words meaning 'cool/cold/frigid/etc' would be derived in the same way using a different root. However, as I stated above, natural languages hardly ever create distinct words to represent such concepts, depending instead on external modification. To make matters worse, the derivations may only be approximate. For example, we could also gloss "xaupino" as either 'scorching', 'blistering', or 'scalding', but these all have implications beyond basic 'hotness', since they imply manner as well as degree of heat. Actually, the gloss 'torrid' is also inappropriate, since it has connotations of both 'dryness' and 'climate'. Keep in mind, though, that this lack of precise English counterparts is not a problem at all. As long as the semantics of the derivations are precise, there will never be any doubt about their meaning, even though a particular derivation may not have an exact counterpart in a particular natural language. As I mentioned earlier, it is almost always impossible to find exact matches for a word in different languages. Also, the above derivations are actually more useful than the English counterparts, since they are slightly more general and can be used in more contexts. Specific implications such as 'climate' or 'dryness' are almost always obvious from context. Here are some useful examples derived from the P-s adjective "tencino = tenciseno", meaning 'intelligent: tencipiseno = 'genius' tencigeseno = 'brilliant' tenciseno = tencino = 'intelligent', 'smart' tencisoseno = 'slow', 'dense', 'obtuse' tencijuseno = 'stupid', 'dim-witted', 'retarded' tencinaseno = 'non-intelligent', 'lacking intelligence' tencisenano = tencinano = 'not intelligent', 'not smart' Note that someone who is 'genius' is also 'brilliant', but someone who is 'brilliant' is not necessarily 'genius'. Thus, "-pi-" derivations are a subset of "-ge-" derivations. For the same reasons, "-ju-" derivations are a subset of "-so-" derivations. Now, what happens if we apply a scalar MCM to an inherently binary state. In my opinion, the following rule is the most consistent and productive: The scalar polarity MCMs force a binary state to become scalar. The resulting derivation indicates a more precise position within the semantic space of the scalar concept. To illustrate the rule, consider the following derivations using the root "xoya-", meaning 'alive' (default class = A/P-d): P-s "xoyasesi" = 'to be alive', 'to live' "xoyaseno" = 'alive/living' "xoyanaseno" = 'non-living' (inherently) "xoyasenano" = 'not living', 'lifeless' (currently) P-d "xoyanapiasi" = 'to die' "xoyanapiano" = 'dead/deceased' A/P-d "xoyanasi=xoyanapusi" = 'to kill' "xoyasepino" = 'vibrantly alive' "xoyasejuno" = 'minimally alive', 'very close to death' "xoyanapiapino" = 'maximally dead', 'dead as a doornail' "xoyanapiajuno" = 'minimally dead', 'barely over the line' For another example, consider the 'open/close' distinction, where the basic root has the binary state meaning 'closed'. If the "-na-" CCM is used, we create a word with the prototypical interpretation of 'open'. Now, if we apply the scalar MCMs, the 'open' state is extended to cover the range from 'fully/ wide open' to 'slightly ajar'. Here are more examples that illustrate all of the above: P/F-s "lono" = 'alike', 'similar' "lopino" = 'identical', 'exactly alike' "lonano" = 'dissimilar/different' "lonapino" = 'truly distinct', 'completely different', 'having nothing in common' Compare it with another relational state meaning 'same' or 'equal': P/F-s: "kapsusi" = copula 'to be' "kapsuno" = 'same/equal' "kapsunano" = 'not the same', 'unequal', 'different' Here's another example, using a basic noun: A/P-d "paipusi" = 'to energize/activate/turn on' But how do we create it's obvious and very useful opposite meaning 'to shut off' or 'to de-activate'? The word "paipunasi" would mean that energy was not being applied; i.e., 'to not turn on'. In fact, "paipunasi" could also imply that something else was being done to the patient INSTEAD OF turning it on. Because of this 'other than' sense, "-na-" is not going to be very useful when it follows the combination noun classifier + verb classifier. Still, it will have some uses. So, what about "painapusi"? This could be paraphrased as 'to apply non- energy to the patient', which is totally useless. So, instead, why don't we re-define the use of "-na-" when applied to basic nouns that undergo additional verbal derivation. The new semantics would be as follows: When a basic noun undergoes verbal derivation, the entity is 'applied to' or 'present in' the patient. When a basic noun modified by "-na-" undergoes verbal derivation, the entity is 'removed from' or 'lacking in' the entity. Thus, we can now create a word meaning 'to turn off' or 'to de-energize': A/P-d "painapusi" = 'to de-energize/de-activate/turn off' Here are some more examples from basic nouns: Noun "tencivauda" = 'brain' A/P-d "tencivaunapusi" = 'to lobotomize', 'to remove brain matter from' P-s adj "tencivaunaseno" = 'lacking brain matter', 'brainless' "tencivaunasepino" = 'completely brainless (literally)' Noun "tencidengida" = 'mind (sentient)', 'intellect' P-d "tencidengipiasi" = 'to become sentient', 'to get a mind' P-d "tencidenginapiasi" = 'to become non-sentient', 'to lose one's mind' A/P-d "guafapusi" = 'to water', 'to add water to' "guafanapusi" = 'to dry', 'to dehydrate', 'to remove water from' P-s adj "guafanaseno" = 'dry', 'waterless' A completely different kind of opposite can be derived by means of the inverse grammatical voice change. These words will all be derived from P/F-s state verbs, since they indicate a relationship between two entities. Here are some examples: Active Inverse -------------- --------------- to be parent of -> to be child of to be sibling of -> to be sibling of (NO meaningful inverse) to own -> to belong to to enclose -> to be inside of to be above -> to be beneath/below Opposites of this type are normally referred to as _converses_. And, as we saw earlier, inversion can also be useful for deriving other kinds of relationships from non-P/F-s verbs (e.g. 'teacher/pupil' and 'student/ subject'.) Note that with the 'male/female' MCMs we discussed earlier, we can create words for 'mother', 'father', 'son', 'daughter', 'brother', and 'sister' from the roots meaning 'parent' and 'sibling'. If we create MCMs meaning 'same sex as referent' and 'different sex from referent', we can derive words equivalent to some of the kinship terms of Austronesian languages such as Hawaiian and Malagasy. For example, we could create the equivalent of the Hawaiian word "kaikaina" meaning 'younger sibling of the same sex' from the root for 'sibling' plus the MCMs meaning 'younger' and 'same sex as referent'. Thus, "his X" would mean 'his younger brother', while "her X" would mean 'her younger sister'. In the same way, other MCMs could be created to allow derivation of the kinship terms of any natural language. When the semantics of a relationship are truly in balance, as in the parent/ child example, it is impossible to tell which is patient and which is focus. In these cases, it doesn't really matter which is active and which is inverse. In other words, we can't make a meaningful semantic distinction by making one patient and the other focus - all we can do is make a TOPICAL distinction. We might, however, adopt rules for the sake of consistency. For example, active forms could be used for the polarity that is inherently greater in magnitude or more positive in outlook (such as 'older', 'wiser', 'bigger', 'better', 'sentient', etc.). The inverse forms would be used for their counterparts. Thus, 'parent' would be basic, and 'child' would be derived from it. [This, of course, is essentially what we did above with binary states. Note that the inverse relationship is inherently binary.] 10.0 COUNTS AND MEASURES Counts (also called _quantifiers_) and measures are inherently stative because they provide more information about an entity. Consider the following: He saw students. He saw tall students. He saw three tall students. He saw three 6-foot tall students. Each use of a count or measure reduces the number of possible referents, just as if they were adjectives. Thus, counts and measures are inherently stative - they just happen to be quantitative rather than qualitative. 10.1 IMPLEMENTING COUNT WORDS In light of the above, it might seem most appropriate to define P-s state verbs, one per digit, which can then be combined in some way to form larger numbers. However, I feel that this is not the best approach, for three reasons: 1. Large numbers (e.g. 3214) indicate single quantities or 'states', but would require many words to implement. In general, a single quantity, whether 'six' or 'nine-hundred-and-seventy-six', should ideally be implemented as a single word, if only because it is actually USED as a single word. 2. The syntax/semantics interface for numbers would be difficult (and perhaps impossible) to design in a way that is consistent with the remainder of the system. For example, how do you combine the words for 5, 100, 6, 10, and 7 to create the number 567? Should we simply link adjective forms? Or should adjective, noun, and perhaps verb forms be combined? Can it be done in a way that is consistent with the way adjectives, nouns, and verbs are combined in non-numeric modification? Can the result conform to a self- segregating morphology? And can it undergo further derivation? Personally, I don't think it's possible without extreme complication and without the adoption of ad hoc rules that apply only to numbers. 3. The resulting numbers would be very long - much longer than is common in natural languages. Instead, I am going to suggest a simple system that creates a single, efficient word for any quantity, regardless of size. To accomplish this, we will allocate several numeric roots that will also function as MCMs. These root/ MCMs can be combined to represent the actual quantity. There will also be morphemes to represent ordinality, radix, a minus sign, a decimal point, an exponent, and so on. In our sample language, a basic number will have the following format: ( radix ) + ( minus sign ) + [ digit ] + ( decimal point + [digit] ) + ( exponent + (minus sign) + [digit] ) + ( ordinality ) + part-of-speech where [] indicates one or more of the enclosed item () indicates that the enclosed item is optional Here are the number-forming morphemes: -minsu- minus sign (default = positive) -zeyo- zero -fe- one -du- two -zi- three -kau- four -poi- five -bua- six -vastu- seven -ketsa- eight -go- nine -cuye- decimal point -jinta- exponent -- cardinal (this is the default) -xunga- ordinal Here are some examples: zeyono= 0 zino = 3 zixungano = 3rd dugono = 29 dugoxungano = 29th duzeyoduno = 202 duzeyozeyono OR dujintaduno = 200 du-cuye-poino = 2.5 minsudu-cuye-poino = -2.5 du-cuye-poizeyogo-jintagono = 2.509 x 10**9 Note that, since numbers are essentially P-s adjectives, we will assign P-s as the default class for numbers. (We will see later how to derive other forms.) Thus, numbers represent the state concept 'being N in number'. Hyphens can be used at appropriate spots to make the results easier to read. Simple powers-of-ten can be represented with the exponent feature or by using an appropriate number of zeros. For example, 'ten' would be "fezeyono" or "jintafeno", 'hundred' would be "fezeyozeyono" or "jintaduno", and so on. If you want more efficient results, however, you could also implement single morphemes for the more common powers-of-ten. For example: -dai- ten -senti- hundred -kio- thousand -milni- million 10 = daino 100 = sentino 1,000 = kiono 1,000,000 = milnino If you want compound numbers to more closely resemble their natural language counterparts, you can optionally use powers-of-ten, as in the following examples: 24 = dudai-kau-no (literally 'two-ten-four') 657 = buasenti-poidai-vastu-no (literally 'six-hundred-five-ten-seven') 21,007 = dudaifekio-vastu-no (literally 'two-ten-one-thousand-seven) 7,000,028 = vastukio-dudai-ketsa-no (literally 'seven-million-two-ten-eight') Numbers can also be expressed in different bases. Here are some additional morphemes that can be used for hexadecimal numbers: -heksi- hexadecimal radix (default = base ten) -maya- A hex -biwi- B hex -cawa- C hex -doyo- D hex -neye- E hex -fuyu- F hex Here are a few examples: heksi-du-zi-no = 23 hexadecimal = 35 decimal heksi-fe-maya-fuyu-no = 1AF hexadecimal = 431 decimal heksi-minsu-neye-zeyo-no = -E0 hexadecimal = -224 decimal The actual value of a numeric morpheme is never fixed, but must always be interpreted according to the current radix. In other words, the numeric morpheme simply represents a fixed string of one or more digits. Thus, the word "heksidaino" is 10 hexadecimal = 16 decimal, "heksisentino" is 100 hexadecimal = 256 decimal, and "heksikiono" is 1000 hexadecimal = 4096 decimal. As with all MCMs, the numeric morphemes can be used as either roots or MCMs. Thus, they may be used in words other than numbers. We'll see examples of this later. We can designate an additional morpheme to indicate fractions. For example, if the fraction morpheme is "-divde-" and has the meaning 'over' or 'divided by', then we can do the following: -divde- divider, X/Y fedivdeduno 'one half' dudivdegono 'two ninths' dudivdesentino 'two hundredths' = 2 percent du-cuye-poi-divdesentino 'two point five hundredths' = 2.5 percent Note that there is no need to create a separate word for 'percent', since the combination "-divde-senti-" effectively means 'percent'. As a short cut, we could also designate a unique morpheme to indicate simple 'one-over-X' fractions. For example, if this morpheme is "-fevde-", then we can do the following: -fevde- divider, 1/X fevdeduno 'one half' fevdezino 'one third' fevdevastugono 'one seventy-ninth' In effect, "-fevde-" is an abbreviation for "-fe-divde-". To handle imaginary numbers, we will use the morpheme "-vevna-", as in the following examples: -vevna- real/imaginary separator zi-vevna-duno 3 + i2 du-vevna-minsukauno 2 - i4 ducuyedu-vevna-minsuzicuyekauno 2.2 - i3.4 Additional numeric morphemes can be allocated to derive words that are quantitative, but less specific. Here they are: -saksi- all, the whole amount -mai- many, much, a lot, a large amount -xandu- not too many, not too much -pewa- few, little, a small amount -zonja- any, positive non-zero, one or more, greater than zero These can be used just like the others (although use of radix, decimal points, exponents, and so on would not make sense): I saw maino guasuda = I saw many ducks. Do you have zonjano mirrors? = Do you have one or more mirrors? = Do you have any mirrors? Sorry, we sold saksida yesterday. = Sorry, we sold all of them yesterday. I'd like pewano guafada, please. = I'd like a little water, please. There's maino soup in the pot. = There's a lot of soup in the pot. Note how, in the last two examples, less specific numerics can also be used to modify mass nouns. In fact, we can adopt the convention that the less specific numerics will have a mass interpretation when modifying mass nouns and a count interpretation when modifying count nouns. For example, "saksino" will mean 'every' when applied to count nouns and 'the entire amount' when applied to mass nouns. If we want to change the default, the appropriate CCM can be applied to the noun. For example, 'the entire duck' would be "saksino guasujazmida", where "-jazmi-" is the 'mass' CCM. The less specific numerics may also be combined with specific numbers to represent useful words and expressions: dusaksino 'both' = 'two + all' vastusaksino 'all seven' saksifeno 'each/every' = 'all + one' The non-specific morphemes will not be useful with the ordinal marker unless we adopt a different interpretation. I suggest that a non-specific numeric plus an ordinal marker be interpreted as an appropriately sized portion of the entire amount, as follows: saksixungano 'the entire', 'all of the' maixungano 'a large fraction/portion of' xanduxungano 'a small fraction/portion of' pewaxungano 'a tiny fraction/portion of', 'a modicum of' zonjaxungano 'a fraction/portion of' The ordinal marker can also be used with the 'maximal' scalar polarity morphemes "-pi-" and "-ju-": -pi- maximally, extremely pixungano final, last few -ju- minimally, barely, hardly juxungano initial, first few Other classifiers can be used to create words with different argument structures. Here are some examples (the default for all numerics is P-s): P-s: duno 'two' dusi 'to be two in number' zisi 'to be three in number' du-cuye-zisi 'to be 2.3 in quantity' P-d: dupiasi 'to become two in number' Since numerics select a subset from a potentially larger set, they imply a relationship between the subset (P) and the larger set (F). For example: P/F-s: femasi 'to be one of' (eg. "He's one of the Smith boys.") P/F-d: dudosi 'to become two of' (eg. "They just became two of our newest members.") As nouns, they represent the concept "N entities" or "an N-some": I have daino copies left = I have ten copies left. Please give me buada = Please give me six (of them). I met the zida yesterday = I met the threesome/trio yesterday. Other combinations of numeric root, classifier, CCM, and MCM can be used to produce many useful words. Here are some useful derivations from the number 'one': P-s: fesi 'to be single/one in number' P-s adj: feno 'one', 'single', 'only', 'sole' P-s noun: feda 'a unit', 'a single entity' P-s adv: fepe 'together', 'as a unit', 'in unison' fenape 'apart', 'separately' P-s quality: feveda 'unity, 'oneness' feveno 'unary', 'monadic' P-d: fepiasi 'to coalesce', 'to become one (in number)' fenapiasi 'to come apart', 'to disintegrate', 'to break/split up' P-d process: fepiapada 'coalescence' fenapiapada 'dissociation', 'disintegration' A/P-d: fepusi 'to unify', 'to integrate' fenapusi 'to separate/divide/split apart' A/P-d process: fepupada 'unification' A/P-d [+F]: fenakomiusi 'to segregate/set apart' And so on. There are many others. 10.2 IMPLEMENTING MEASURE WORDS Earlier, we discussed how the focus of basic scalar state verbs could elaborate the state, as in the following examples: Saudi Arabia is rich vs. Saudi Arabia is rich in oil. It's also possible to be even more precise, as in: John is rich vs. John is rich to the tune of 3 million dollars. Here, the argument "3 million dollars" is simply the focus of the P/F-s verb meaning 'to be rich'. In other words, any state that can have different degrees of intensity (i.e. scalar states) can be the root of a P/F-s verb that measures the degree of the state. Here are some more English examples: P-s: John is_tall. P/F-s: John is_tall 6 feet = John is 6 feet tall. P-s: The book is_heavy. P/F-s: The book is_heavy 4 kilograms = The book weighs 4 kilograms. P-s: The opera is_long (temporal). P/F-s: The opera is_long 3 hours = The opera lasts 3 hours. Thus, there is no need to create special verbs meaning 'to last', 'to weigh', 'to have a volume of' and so on. We simply need to focus the appropriate P-s state verbs and provide a specific measurement as the focus argument. Note that English has only a few verbs such as "to weigh" or "to last". It does not have similar equivalents for most of its measure words. For example, we say "He is too tall" - NOT "*He heights too much", or "The rope is too long" - NOT "*The rope lengths too much". The system proposed here allows you to derive verbs for any kind of measurement. So, let's define a few roots and derive the corresponding measure verbs: -sawa- -> scalar state 'long (temporal)' sawamasi -> P/F-s 'to last F' -hayu- -> scalar state 'heavy' hayumasi -> P/F-s 'to weigh F' -lenga- -> scalar state 'long (spatial)' lengamasi -> P/F-s 'to be F in length/height/depth' [By default, scalar states are P-s. Thus, the P/F-s derivations require the "-ma-" classifier.] The quality CCM "-ve-" can be used to derive the corresponding words meaning 'weight', 'length/height', and 'duration'. For example, the word "hayumaveda" means 'weight'. [Note that we used the P/F-s form for 'weight' because it implies a specific value. The unfocused P-s form, "hayuveda" would be used to represent the meaning 'heaviness'.] Note that measurement nouns such as "weight", "age", "length", and so on can ALSO be obtained via middle voice derivations of the corresponding verbs. For example, the English noun "weight" is also the F-s [-P] noun derivation of the verb "to weigh"; i.e. "hayumadeda". [I leave it as an exercise for the reader to distinguish between the two senses. Here's a hint: the middle derivation is inherently definite, while the quality derivation is inherently indefinite.] Earlier, in the section on abstract nouns, we created the measurement classifier "-ta-". Let's use it now to derive a few measurements: de-ta-da -> 'day' me-ta-da -> 'meter' pondu-ta-da -> 'pound' [Note that, since these are basic nouns, the root is used for its mnemonic value, which means it can be used for its sound value. It doesn't even have to use defined morphemes.] More precisely, the noun forms have the meaning "an entity of one X in measure", as in: detada - "a day", "an entity that is one day long" e.g. He spent the detada with his mother. = He spent the day with his mother. metada - "an entity that is one meter long/high/deep" e.g. He cut the metada. = He cut the meter-long item/object/thing. The verb forms are inherently P-s and have the meaning 'to be one X in measure': detasi -> 'to last one day' metasi -> 'to be one meter in length/height/depth' pondutasi -> 'to weigh one pound' Thus, the adjective forms of the measure words would have the meaning "being one X in measure", as in: pondutano "being one pound in weight" e.g. He lifted the pondutano statue. = He lifted the one-pound statue. metano "being one meter in length/height/depth" e.g. He cut the metano rope. = He cut the meter-long rope. Note that when count adjectives modify measure NOUNS, they refer to N distinct entities. They do NOT refer to an entity that has a measure of N X's. Thus: He cut the ketsano metada. = He cut the eight meter-long items/objects/things. and NOT: He cut the eight-meter-long item/object/thing. In other words, there are eight items, and each item is one-meter long. If we need to multiply the measure itself rather than the number of entities, we simply append the appropriate numeric morphemes. The result will modify the MAGNITUDE, rather than the quantity. Here are some examples (using English word order): -kio- 'one thousand' = 'kilo-' metakiosi 'to be one kilometer in dimension' We can also use exponents: -jinta- exponent -minsu- minus -zi- three -jintazi- kilo- -jintaminsuzi- milli- Note that "-kio-" is an alternative to "-jintazi-". In fact, the negative exponent is so useful, that I have allocated a separate morpheme for it in the sample language: -hu- negative exponent (equivalent to -jinta-minsu-) -du- two -hudu- centi- -zi- three -huzi- milli- -bua- six -hubua- micro- metahudusi to be one centimeter in length metahuzisi to be one millimeter in length metahubuasi to be one micrometer in length And so on. This approach can be used to create counterparts to English morphemes such as "bi-", "tri-", "penta-", "centi-", "sesqui-", etc. Here are some more examples: He cut the metakauda. = He cut the four-meter-long item/object/thing. He spent the detakauda with his mother. = He spent the four-day period with his mother. He spent duno detakauda with his mother. = He spent two four-day periods with his mother. However, I'm not sure that this is a good approach. In general, words should be created only if they are useful in their own right and have long-term value. The above examples are just temporary, on-the-fly creations. Still, this type of construction seems to be universal among natural languages (perhaps because numbers are, by nature, temporary, on-the-fly constructions). Alternatively, if you're a purist, you could paraphrase: His visit sawamasi kauno detada. = His visit lasted four days. or use relative clauses: He spent the period which sawamasi kauno detada with his mother. OR He spent the period which detasi kaulape with his mother. = He spent the period which was four days long with his mother. He cut the thing which lengamasi kauno metada. OR He cut the thing which metasi kaulape. = He cut the thing which was four meters long. As can be seen from the above examples, the "0" adverbial form of a count word (classifier "-la-") has the meaning "N-times". Note that the alternative approach is useful in its own right whenever we want to use the verb form of a measure along with a count. In this case, we use a verb for the measure and the "0" adverb for the count. Thus: The book pondutasi kaulape. = The book 'weighs one pound' 'four-times'. = The book weighs four pounds. English speakers, however, will probably be more comfortable using the equivalent of the English verb 'to weigh': The book hayumasi kauno pondutada. = The book weighs four pounds. It is important to note that we can NOT use the P-s adverb form - we HAD to use the "0" form. The reason is that the P-s form will imply a link to the patient of the verb, thus indicating quantity. Even so, the P-s adverb form is still very useful: The book pondutasi kaupe. = The book 'weighs one pound' 'being four in number'. = All together, the four books weigh one pound. = The four books weigh one pound by themselves. [If you have difficulty with the above translation, try it using the number 'one' instead of 'four'. The resulting translation will contain an expression such as 'singly' or 'by itself'.] The "0" form, however, directly modifies the verb and does not link to any argument of the verb. Thus, we are, in effect, indicating the 'quantity' of the verb; i.e. the frequency of the event. [This is an important distinction that will come in handy again later, when we discuss _comparatives_.] The same effect can also be obtained by using the previous-word modifier part- of-speech (terminator = "-di"), since it always modifies the word that it immediately follows. Thus, the last example that used "-la-" could also have been implemented as follows: The book pondutasi kaudi. = The book 'weighs one pound' 'four-times'. = The book weighs four pounds. Keep in mind, though, that the "0" form will probably be more useful, since it is a true adverb and does not have to immediately follow the verb. For example, direct and/or oblique objects can appear between the verb and the adverb. Adverbial "0" forms of the non-specific numerics are also very useful. Here are some examples (for convenience, I've repeated some of the numeric morphemes below): -saksi- all, the whole amount -mai- many, much, a lot, a large amount -xandu- not too many, not too much -pewa- few, little, a small amount -zonja- any, positive non-zero, one or more, greater than zero saksilape = 'always', 'all the time' mailape = 'often/frequently/a lot' xandulape = 'sometimes/occasionally' pewalape = 'rarely' zonjalape = 'ever (in questions)', 'at least once' Also, from the specific numerics, we get: zeyolape = 'never' felape = 'once' dulape = 'twice' zilape = 'three times/thrice' The ordinal derivations are also useful: fexungalape = 'for the first time' duxungalape = 'for the second time' e.g. "Yesterday, he went to Boston duxungalape" = "Yesterday, he went to Boston for the second time." And so on. Again, the shorter "-di" forms can also be used, but they must always immediately follow the verb. We can also handle noun phrases that contains both counts and measures. For these, we have several options: The open adjective "mabie": I bought gono pondutada mabie rice. or I bought rice mabie gono pondutada. = I bought nine pounds of rice. A relative clause: I bought rice that hayumasi gono pondutada. or I bought rice that pondutasi golape. = I bought rice that weighed nine pounds. An open noun version (terminator = "-giu") of the P/F-s measure verb: I bought gono pondutagiu rice. = I bought nine pounds-of rice. A numeric multiplier and the adjective form of the measure: I bought pondutagono rice. = I bought rice being-nine-pounds-in-weight. A previous-word modifier: I bought pondutano godi rice. = I bought rice being-one-pound-in-weight-times-nine. Agentive versions of the measure verbs are also useful. Here are some examples: P/F-s: The speech sawamasi 25 minutes. = The speech lasts 25 minutes. A/P/F-s: He sawatuesi the speech 25 minutes. = He makes the speech last 25 minutes. A/P/F-d: He sawakosi the speech 25 minutes. = He lengthened the speech by 25 minutes. [Remember, the focus of "-s" scalar states elaborates the ACTUAL magnitude, while for "-d" and "-p" verbs, it elaborates the CHANGE in magnitude.] If we want to create versions of the English verbs such as "to time" as in "He timed the performance" or "to weigh" as in "He weighed the rice", then we need to create activity versions of the basic state verbs. In the sample language, we will accomplish this with the special CCM "-vie-". When added to a state root, it will convert the root to one with the meaning 'to measure or determine the state of' with a class of AP/F-d. Here are some examples: AP/F-d: sawaviesi = 'to time', 'to measure/determine the duration of' hayuviesi = 'to weigh', 'to measure/determine the weight of' lengaviesi = 'to measure/determine the length/height/depth of' The generic derivations are also useful. For example, the AP/F-d generic action verb "viesi" means 'to measure'. The AP-s verb "viepanjisi" means 'to do the measuring'. The AP/F-s verb "viefisi" means 'to take measurements of'. And so on. Finally, do not confuse measure words with specific entities that have precise measures, such as the named time periods "September", "Tuesday", and "1994". These are proper nouns and we'll discuss how to deal with them later. 10.3 OTHER NUMERIC DERIVATIONS It would also be useful to have a separate numeric morpheme to indicate the concept 'N at a time' or 'N per group'. For example, if we allocate "-kawa-", for this morpheme, we would get the following: -kawa- N at a time, N per group, in groups of N fekawalape = one at a time dukawalape = two at a time duvastukawalape = twenty-seven at a time saksikawalape = all at once, all at the same time, all together vastukawano guasuda = a group of seven ducks And so on. Note how, when we directly modify a verb, we get the 'N at a time' meaning, and when we modify a countable noun, we get the 'in groups of N' meaning. [Do not confuse "-kawa-" with the 'group' CCM "-senje-" that we discussed earlier. The 'group' CCM changes the inherent nature of the noun, while "-kawa-" simply describes the count noun in greater detail. In other words, "-senje-" changes the class of the noun by creating a distinct, single entity, while "-kawa-" simply modifies the noun. Also, "-senje-" implies that the members of the group contribute to the operation or function of the whole, while "-kawa-" does not have this sense at all.] We can also specify the number of groups: vastukawaduno guasuda = two groups of seven ducks Note that the order of the number morphemes is the exact opposite of English. This is because English numbers modify the noun to their right, while MCMs in the sample language modify everything to their left. The A/P-d verbal derivations are also useful: John kawapusi guasuda = John assembled/combined/arranged the ducks into groups. John kawafepusi guasuda = John assembled/combined/arranged the ducks into one group. John vastukawapusi guasuda = John assembled/combined/arranged the ducks into groups of seven. John vastukawadupusi guasuda = John assembled/combined/arranged the ducks into two groups of seven. If you're not comfortable with putting so much information into a single word, you can break it up into smaller words (remember, all numeric morphemes are P-s by default): P-s: kawada = a group kawada mabie vastuda = a group of seven kawada mabie vastuno guasuda = a group of seven ducks zino kawada mabie vastuno guasuda = three groups of seven ducks P/F-s: kawamagiu = a group of kawamagiu vastuda = a group of seven kawamagiu vastuno guasuda = a group of seven ducks zino kawamagiu vastuno guasuda = three groups of seven ducks We can also use the unadorned A/P/F-d derivation: kawakosi = to arrange/combine/assemble P into groups of F John kawakosi guasuda vastuda = John arranged the ducks into groups of seven. [Keep in mind that A/P/F verbs are di-transitive and take TWO objects.] We will also need some root/MCMs that will allow us to compare quantities. As it turns out, we already have them - we introduced them in the chapter on polarity. Here they are again: -pi- 'maximally', 'extremely' -ge- 'very', 'highly' -so- 'not too', 'not very' -ju- 'minimally', 'barely', 'hardly' However, in the section on polarity, we used them as UNFOCUSED concepts. When focused, they are actually comparatives. Since this may not be immediately obvious, consider the following: tenci + pi = maximally intelligent = genius tenci + ge = very/highly intelligent = brilliant etc. In the above combinations, we are effectively comparing an entity with an unspecified focus. For example, a 'brilliant' person is highly intelligent compared to the average person. Now, when a morpheme such as "-ge-" follows a root morpheme meaning 'X', we obtain the sense 'more than X'. However, what we need here is the inverse concept 'X more than'. So, to obtain this sense, we will simply adopt the convention that when something FOLLOWS "-ge-", it will have the sense of 'X more than'. We will use the same approach for the other scalar polarity morphemes. Here are some examples: gefeno guasuda = one more duck geduno guasuda = two more ducks sozino guasuda = three fewer ducks Also, when "-ge-" is attached to an adjectival concept, it is equivalent to the English suffix "-er", while "-pi-" is equivalent to English "-est". For example, "tencisepino = tencipino" means 'smartest' or 'most intelligent', while "teyomapisi = teyopisi" means 'to be most knowledgeable about/in'. [Note the distinction between "tencisepino=tencipino" = 'most smart' and "tencipiseno" = 'genius'. Keep in mind that when the modifier directly modifies the root, it modifies the INHERENT state (i.e. 'genius'). When it follows the verb classifier, it modifies the current or local state (i.e. 'most intelligent'), and the actual degree will depend on the context.] Now, the 'N more/less' interpretation only makes sense if the noun is a count noun. If it is a mass noun, or if a number is not specified, then the interpretation is simple 'more' or 'less/fewer'. Thus, geno guafada = more water sono guafada = less water geno guasuda = more ducks sono guasuda = fewer ducks The "0" verb forms are also useful: gefelape = again, one more time gedulape = two more times, twice more gezeyolape = zero more times, not...again, never...again, not...anymore gemailape = many more times, much more gepewalape = a few more times sodulape = two fewer times gelape = some more, as in "He did it some more" solape = less, as in "He sleeps less now" And so on. Note that "-ge-fe-" has the same meaning as the English prefix "re-". Here is an example: P/F-d: teyodosi = 'to learn' teyodogefesi = 'to re-learn' However, there is a potential problem with the above derivation. In the sample language, when an MCM is added to a stem, it immediately applies to the entire stem. Thus, the above derivation proceeds as follows: teyodosi = 'to learn' teyodogesi = 'to learn a lot' teyodogefesi = 'to learn a lot once' Obviously, the "correct" derivation is not going to be very useful, and, as we saw earlier, we already have derivations for words like "once", "twice", etc. We can, of course, create a single morpheme to represent "ge + fe", but this is really not necessary. In the sample language, we will simply adopt the rule that whenever a numeric morpheme immediately precedes and/or follows a scalar polarity morpheme, they will be considered as a unit. Thus, with this rule, the above example is correctly parsed as: teyodo(gefe)si = 'to learn one more time' = 'to re-learn' Here are some more examples: AP/F-s: zefisi = 'to do (something)' zefigefesi = 'to re-do (something)', 'to repeat (something)' AP/F-d: mesuasi = 'to reach', 'to arrive at', 'to come to' mesuagefesi = 'to return to' For relative ordinals, we can use the morphemes "-ge-" or "-so-" plus the ordinal marker "-xunga-". If a numeric morpheme is not provided, the default value will be 'one'. Here are some examples: gexungano 'next' = 'the one-more-th' soxungano 'last/previous' = 'the one-less-th' geduxungano 'next plus one', 'the one after the next one' soduxungano 'the one before the last' Now, note that N follows the polarity root/MCM in the above examples. It is, in effect, the patient of an inverse, unfocused relationship. If we place a number AFTER the polarity root/MCM, it will represent the focus; i.e., it will represent the concept 'more than N' or 'less than N'. Here are some examples: dugeno guasuda = more than two ducks zisono guasuda = less than three ducks dugelape = more than twice zisolape = less than three times Note that the numeric root/MCM "-zonja-" that we derived earlier and meaning 'any' or 'more than zero' is actually a useful abbreviation for "-zeyo-ge-". Should we ever need an explicit plural marker, we can use "-fe-ge-", meaning 'more than one'. The singular, of course, is simply "-fe-". We can also implement the concept of 'same amount/quantity' by using a morpheme that we introduced earlier: -kapsu- same, equal When it follows the numeric morpheme "-zonja-" (meaning 'any'), it will have the meaning 'same amount or quantity'. Here are some examples: zonjakapsuno guasuda = just as many ducks, the same number of ducks zonjakapsuno guafada = just as much water, the same amount of water zonjakapsulape = just as often, just as many times, the same number of times When used with a specific number, it emphasizes the exact value: buakapsuno guasuda = exactly/precisely six ducks buakapsulape = exactly six times And so on. The morpheme "-lo-" which we introduced earlier (meaning 'like' or 'similar'), represents the concept 'about' or 'approximately' when used in numeric contexts. Here is an example: -lo- like, similar, about, approximately golono guasuda = approximately nine ducks Finally, keep in mind that numeric morphemes are both roots and MCMs and, as MCMs, they can appear after a classifier. It is not necessary to create distinct numeric words. Here are some examples: guasugoda = nine ducks guasugogeda = more than nine ducks guasugegoda = nine more ducks guasugokapsuda = exactly nine ducks Later, we'll see how the scalar polarity morphemes can be put to even greater use, when we discuss _comparatives_. 11.0 DEIXIS A _deictic_ word is one whose referent is determined by the speech context. For example, in the sentence "I ate here yesterday", there are three deictic words: 1. "I" - The actual referent depends on WHO uttered the sentence. 2. "here" - The actual location depends on WHERE the sentence was uttered. 3. "yesterday" - The actual time depends on WHEN the sentence was uttered. Deictics are inherently unfocusable - NOT because there is no referent - but because the referent can never be stated explicitly. It is always determined by the speech situation. What's especially fascinating about deictics is the strong relationship between their forms and their meanings in many natural languages, as well as the strong relationship between the meanings of deictics that, on the surface, appear to be completely unrelated. For example, most natural languages have a three-way distinction between personal pronouns, deictic locatives, and demonstratives: 1st person: I/we here this/these 2nd person: you there that/those 3rd person: he/she/it/they yonder yon Standard English rarely uses "yon" and "yonder" anymore, but it used to be used quite often. Also, languages that make the three-way distinctions for locatives and demonstratives generally do it in the following way: this or here -> at or near the speaker that or there -> at or near the addressee yon or yonder -> far from both speaker and addressee Note that 1st person is the speaker, 2nd person is the addressee, and 3rd person is neither the speaker nor the addressee. For example, Japanese is fairly typical of how many languages use the same forms for both demonstratives and locatives: near speaker near addressee far from both ------------ -------------- ------------- adjective this - "kono" that - "sono" yon - "ano" pronoun this - "kore" that - "sore" yon thing - "are" locative here - "koko" there - "soko" yonder - "asoko" While not perfectly regular in the modern language, they all evolved from the same roots. English also has a historical link between "this/here", "that/ there", and "yon/yonder", although it is less regular. An even better example, though, is Cambodian where the word "nih" means either 'this' or 'here', and the word "nuh" means either 'that' or 'there'. And in Turkish, the same root is used to derive the third person pronouns meaning 'he/she/it/they', the demonstrative meaning 'that', AND the locative meaning 'there'. As it turns out, this correlation between form and meaning, and the obvious link to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd person referents is quite common among the world's languages, and I suggest we take advantage of it. Another major difference between deictics and other words is that deictics do not indicate, in any way at all, the nature of their referents. For example, on hearing the noun "duck", we immediately know a lot about the referent. However, the pronouns "you" or "that" or the adjectives "his" or "this" or the locatives "there" or "yonder" tell us nothing about their referents. Instead, they simply 'point to' or 'index' the actual referent. In computer terms, we can think of a deictic as an index into an array of many potential referents. In effect, a deictic used as a noun is not a true noun, a deictic used as an adjective is not a true adjective, and so on, just as the index into an array is not in the same class as the element it points to. Deictics are also different from words such as nouns, verbs, etc. because there are very few of them, and because new ones rarely enter a language. For example, new nouns are adopted by a language quite often, while deictics are the result of slow and gradual language evolution that can take centuries. [Incidentally, since the referents of deictic expressions are effectively 'indexed' by the location of the speaker and the addressee, deictics are also sometimes called _indexicals_, and deixis (i.e. the phenomenom itself) is sometimes referred to as _indexicality_. Also, words that are members of small, closed groups, such as deictics, are called _closed class_ words, while words that are members of large, open groups, such as nouns and verbs, are called _open class_ words.] In the next few sections, I will propose a highly regular system that can be used to implement personal pronouns, possessive adjectives, possessive pronouns, demonstratives, and deictic locative and temporal words. 11.1 PERSONAL PRONOUNS, POSSESSIVE ADJECTIVES, AND POSSESSIVE PRONOUNS In the sample language, I will implement deictics by allocating a set of root morphemes that are MNEMONICALLY compositional. In other words, deictics will be formed from true, unique root morphemes, but we will design them in a way that will display their inherent compositionality. For personal pronouns and possessives, the basic components will be as follows: 1: mi- 2: du- Sing: -a- 3: se- 1+2: ci- plus -st- plus Plur: -i- 1+3: be- 2+3: fa- Unspec: -u- 1+2+3: po- As usual, the terminator will indicate the part-of-speech. Here are the forms that correspond to the English personal pronouns and possessive adjectives (note the use of the genitive CCM "-xa-" for the possessives): I = mistuda my = mistuxano mine = mistuxada 1 you = dustuda your = dustuxano yours = dustuxada 2 it = sestada its = sestaxano its = sestaxada 3, singular we = postuda our = postuxano ours = postuxada 1+2+3 they = sestida their = sestixano theirs = sestixada 3, plural Note that I did not mark number for "I" and "you", since the actual number is always obvious from context. This is certainly necessary to emulate English "you", since it can be either singular or plural. For English "I", the singular form "mistada" could be used to represent the concept 'I and I alone'. Similarly, the singular you form "dustada" would mean 'you and you alone' and the plural form "dustida" would mean 'you all'. I also did not mark number for "we". Obviously, the 1+2, 1+3, and 2+3 forms are inherently plural. However, by using the unspecified form, we can indicate that the number of each COMPONENT is not being specified. If we use the singular or plural form, I suggest that it indicate the quantity of the 3rd person component, if present, or the 2nd person component if the 3rd person is not present. The 1st person component is always whoever is speaking, thus there is never a need to specify its number since it is always obvious (even if more than one person is speaking at the same time). With this rule, we can create the four first person plural pronouns of a language such as Hawaiian: kaaua = cistada, 1+2 singular, the speaker(s) and the person addressed maaua = bestada, 1+3 singular, the speaker(s) and one other person, but NOT the addressee(s) kaakou = cistida, 1+2 plural, the speaker(s) and two or more persons addressed maakou = bestida, 1+3 plural, the speaker(s) and two or more other people, but NOT the addressee(s) Quite a large number of languages have two 1st person plural pronouns. For example, in Indonesian, "kita" has the same coverage as English "we". The second pronoun, however, explicitly EXCLUDES the addressee: kami = bestuda 1+3 unspecified, speaker plus one or more others who are not present, but NOT the addressee(s) Pronouns which include the addressee(s) are called _inclusive_, while pronouns which exclude the addressee(s) are called _exclusive_. Similar derivations can be done to create counterparts of pronouns in other languages. For example, many languages (e.g. Italian, Hungarian) make a singular/plural distinction in their 2nd person pronouns: dustada = you (singular) dustida = you (plural) [Some languages use the 2nd person plural form with singular referents to indicate politeness. We'll discuss how to do this later.] We can make the distinction between 'he', 'she', and 'it' by using a gender MCM (discussed earlier). For example, if the MCM for 'female' is "-gaya-", then the word for English 'she' would be "gayasestada", the word for Spanish 'nosotras' (1+2+3, feminine, singular or plural) would be "gayapostuda", and so on. The 1st person plural form "mistida" can be used by a speaker to emphasize that he is speaking for himself as well as for others who are also present, even though the others are not speaking at the same time. Or, it could be used by someone who considers himself as inherently plural (eg. the royal "we"). Some languages (e.g. Cambodian and several languages of New Guinea) even have versions of 3rd person pronouns that are unspecified for number, as well as 2+3 forms. The system proposed here allows us to create any of these pronouns with total regularity and with whatever degree of precision (or lack of precision) that we need. Some languages have dual (= exactly 2), trial (= exactly 3), and paucal (= a few) forms of their personal pronouns. However, I have (somewhat arbitrarily) provided forms only for 'singular', 'plural', and 'unspecified' number. It would certainly be possible, of course, to provide additional forms for the other numbers. However, these forms are not as common among natural languages, and I don't feel that unique forms are really necessary. Instead, we can create equivalent words by using a specific numeric morpheme as a root, and modifying it with an appropriate deictic morpheme. Here are a few examples: Dual: dupostuda = 'both of us' Trial: zidustuda = 'the three of you', 'you three' Paucal: pewasestuda = 'the few of them' In the above derivations, it was necessary to place the numeric morpheme first. In the sample language, morphemes further refine whatever appears to their left, potentially reducing the number of referents. Thus, if the numeric morpheme had followed the deictic morpheme, it would indicate a possible subset of a larger group. For example, "dupostuda" means 'both of us' where "us" refers to exactly two people, while "postududa" means 'two of us' where "us" refers to more than two people. Verb forms could, by default, be P-s verbs having meanings 'to be X'. The verb "mistusi" would mean 'to be me' or 'I am' (e.g. "Bad carpenter mistusi" = 'I am a bad carpenter') and "mistuxasi" would mean 'to be mine' (e.g. "The pencil mistuxasi" = 'The pencil is mine'). Adjectival forms could be used to handle expressions such as "You boys" in "You boys better behave yourselves", where "You" would be "dustuno" or "dustino" and would modify the noun "boys". Adverbial forms will probably not be very useful, but open modifier forms would be treated the same as basic nouns. Use of verb classifiers could create such words as P-d "mistuxapiasi" = 'to become mine', A/P-d "mistuxapusi" = 'to make mine', etc. 11.2 DEMONSTRATIVES For demonstratives, the basic components will be as follows: 1: mi- 2: du- Sing: -a- 3: se- 1+2: ci- plus -mp- plus Plur: -i- 1+3: be- 2+3: fa- Unspec: -u- 1+2+3: po- As usual, the terminator will indicate the part-of-speech. Here are the English equivalents: this = mimpada or mimpano 1, singular these = mimpida or mimpino 1, plural that = dumpada or dumpano 2, singluar those = dumpida or dumpino 2, plural yon = sempuda or sempuno 3, unspecified If you do not want to make the 'that/yon' distinction, use the 2+3 forms: that = fampada or fampano 2+3, singular those = fampida or fampino 2+3, plural Again, using Indonesian as an example, we can create forms that do not specify number: ini = mimpuda or mimpuno 1, unspecified ('this/these') itu = fampuda or fampuno 2+3, unspecified ('that/those') Some languages have other versions. For example, 1+2 demonstratives are found in Sre (Vietnam) and Chibemba (Africa). The basic verb forms can represent P-s concepts such as 'this is' and 'those are'. For example, the P-s verb "mimpasi = mimpasesi" would mean 'this is' in a sentence such as "This is John Smith" or "This is a papaya". Verb classifiers can also be useful ('to become this entity', 'to make something into that entity', etc.). For example, the A/P-d version of the 3rd person unspecified demonstrative, "sempupusi", would be used to represent "to turn ... into that" in a sentence such as "I TURNED the scrap lumber INTO THAT". [Incidentally, note how "THAT" in the above example can have either a singular or a plural sense, which is why the unspecified form was used.] 11.3 LOCATIVE DEICTICS For locative deictics, the basic components will be as follows: 1: mi- 2: du- Sing: -a- 3: se- 1+2: ci- plus -ng- plus Plur: -i- 1+3: be- 2+3: fa- Unspec: -u- 1+2+3: po- As usual, the terminator will indicate the part-of-speech. Here are the English equivalents: here = mingupe or minguda 1, unspecified number there = dungupe or dunguda 2, unspecified number yonder = sengupe or senguda 3, unspecified number Note that the English words "here/there/yonder" can cover either a single point or a wide area, making them inherently 'unspecified number'. We can use the singular form to get the sense of 'at this spot', while the plural form can be used to get the sense 'hereabout'. If you do not want to make the 'that/yon' distinction, use the 2+3 forms: there = fangupe or fanguda 2+3, unspecified However, the 3rd person form "sengupe" is still useful since it represents the English adverb "over there". As was mentioned above, the singular and plural forms are also useful: mingape 'at this (particular) spot' dungape 'at that (particular) spot' sengape 'at that (particular) spot over there' mingipe 'hereabout' dungipe 'thereabout' sengipe 'those places over there' Keep in mind that deictic locatives ending in "-pe" are adverbs, while those ending in "-da" are nouns. Note the difference in the following examples: mingupe: I met him mingupe yesterday = I met him here yesterday. dungupe: I put the book dungupe = I put the book there. dunguda: I put the book in dunguda = I put the book in there. The basic verb forms can represent such concepts as 'here is', 'there are', etc. For example, the P-s verb "mingusi" would mean 'here is' in a sentence such as "Here's Bill" or "Here are the books you wanted". However, English speakers should be careful not to confuse the 2nd + 3rd or 3rd person deictic constructions with the P-s verb "veyasesi", discussed earlier, which does not refer to a particular location. Consider the following: dungusi: There are the books you wanted. veyasesi: There are people who actually like him. Adjective forms are also useful, as the following examples illustrate: sengupe: I saw Sally over there (= I was over there when I saw her). senguno: I saw Sally over there (= She was over there when I saw her). senguno: The man over there married my sister. In the last two examples, the adjective "senguno" modifies the nouns "Sally" and "man". Verb classifiers can also be useful ('to get here', 'to keep there', 'to put over there' etc.). For example, the A/P-s verb "minguzoyasi" would be used to represent "to keep here" in a sentence such as "We keep the plants here during the winter". Finally, do not confuse deictic locatives with state adverbs such as "near/ nearby", "far/far away/far off", etc. The adverb forms often appear to be used deictically, but this is simply because the contextual referent is sometimes the location of the speaker. There are other times, however, when the referent is NOT the speaker: Referent is the speech location: John lives nearby. (= near here) Referent is NOT the speech location: When I rented that cheap apartment in Boston, John lived nearby. (= near the apartment) Compare the above with "John lives here" vs. "When I rented that cheap apartment in Boston, John lived here". In other words, when using an unfocused version of an inherently focused concept, we must supply a default based on context, and sometimes the default referent will be the speaker's location, but not always. It is important to keep in mind that true deictics are inherently UNFOCUSABLE because the referent is ALWAYS determined by the speech act, and can NEVER be stated explicitly. 11.4 TEMPORAL DEICTICS For temporal deictics, the basic components will be as follows: 1: mi- 2: du- Sing: -a- 3: se- 1+2: ci- plus -lk- plus Plur: -i- 1+3: be- 2+3: fa- Unspec: -u- 1+2+3: po- As usual, the terminator will indicate the part-of-speech. I will also adopt the following person/time mappings: 1: present 2: past 3: future 1+2: past, same time unit 1+3: future, same time unit 2+3: (unassigned) 1+2+3: (unassigned) Here are some English equivalents: now = milkupe 1, unspecified earlier = dulkupe 2, unspecified later = selkupe 3, unspecified right now, at this moment = milkape 1, singular currently, nowadays = milkipe 1, plural Note that the above derivations are true deictics. Thus, they cannot be used in a sentence such as "John arrived at 3, but Bill arrived much earlier". Since "earlier" in the example is not relative to the moment of speech, it is not a true deictic. It is simply a temporal state relationship whose referent must be determined from context. (In fact, we derived this word when we discussed temporal case tags. The word is "lundasepe", meaning 'earlier', 'previously', or 'already'.) Languages also have deictics that refer to specific durations, such as 'today', 'tomorrow', and 'yesterday'. For these, I suggest that we simply convert the appropriate measure word to a temporal deictic by suffixing the deictic root to the measure root. In effect, we are using the deictic root as an MCM and forcing the measure to become deictic. Here are some examples: today = deta-milkupe 'day' + present yesterday = deta-dulkupe 'day' + past tomorrow = deta-selkupe 'day' + future earlier today = deta-cilkupe 'day' + past, same time unit later today = deta-belkupe 'day' + future, same time unit If we use numeric multipliers, we can indicate precise temporal distances from the present time. Here are some examples: day before yesterday = detadu-dulkupe '2 days' + 'earlier' day after tomorrow = detadu-selkupe '2 days' + 'later' 3 days ago = detazi-dulkupe '3 days' + 'earlier' 7 days from now = detavastu-selkupe '7 days' + 'later' The speaker also has the option of using a temporal case tag with an appropriate argument such as in "I saw Bill AT three days before today". 12.0 REDUCING WORD LENGTH A powerful derivational morphology can produce a very large number of words from a very small number of morphemes. At times, though, the resulting words can be much longer than their counterparts in English. People who dislike overly long words, especially when the words represent commonly used concepts, may wish to have ways to shorten them. In the next three sections, I will discuss three ways that these goals can be accomplished in the sample language. 12.1 MACROS As it turns out, we already have one solution to this problem. On several occasions, we created abbreviations for commonly used combinations of existing morphemes. Here are a few of them: -voi- 'double middle' = "-de-de" -kua- 'double anti-passive' = "-ga-ga-" -fevde- '1/X' = "-fe-divde-" ('one over X') -zonja- 'any/some' = "-zeyo-ge-" ('more than zero') I will refer to these abbreviations as _macros_. The dictionary entry for a macro does not need to contain a complete, normal, dictionary definition. It only needs to provide the full, non-abbreviated form. For example, the dictionary entry for "-zonja-" could be listed as simply "fevde = zeyo + ge". Note that macros are fully compatible with a self-segregating morphology. 12.2 PARTICLES To create shorter versions of complete words, we can allocate a distinct part- of-speech terminator. We will call these new words _particles_ and allocate the terminator "-ka" for them. Particles are not semantically compositional, but anything appearing before the terminator can be used for its mnemonic value. For example, if the language designer considered the word "detamilkupe" (meaning 'today') to be too long, he could allocate the particle "deka", or "detaka", or even "demika" to represent it, where "de-", "deta-", and "demi-" would be used for their mnemonic values. [Note that I am not actually making this assignment in the sample language, since I do not feel that it is necessary. I am simply listing it as a possibility. Later, I will discuss particle assignments that are better motivated.] In effect, a particle is simply an abbreviation for a complete word. Note that particles, unlike macros, can NOT appear within another word - particles always represent complete, stand-alone words. Since a particle is not semantically compositional, you cannot determine its meaning from the meaning of its parts, nor does the terminator indicate its part-of-speech. Instead, a dictionary look-up will be required to determine both its meaning and its part-of-speech. And like macros, if a particle represents a single longer word, the dictionary entry does not need to contain a complete, normal, dictionary definition. It only needs to provide the full, non-abbreviated word. Using the above example, the dictionary entry for "deka" could be listed as simply "deka = detamilkupe". Finally, note that since particles are unambiguously terminated, they are fully compatible with a self-segregating morphology. 12.3 THE LOW LANGUAGE Human beings do not require a self-segregating morphology in order to understand spoken language. The combination of prosodic features and context is more than sufficient to allow a human listener to parse speech into its component morphemes and words. For speech processing by computers, however, the problem is much more difficult. It is not currently possible to program computers to parse human speech unambiguously, and it is not likely to become possible in the foreseeable future. When and if it eventually does become possible, it will require expensive, custom designs for each language. The reason for the difficulty is that natural languages are not self- segregating. If they were, then speech processing would be trivially easy. In the sample language, we have achieved self-segregation by strictly and unambiguously defining the forms of morphemes and by requiring the use of terminators to terminate each word. The terminators play the additional role of marking the part-of-speech of the word, which can help considerably in syntactic parsing. However, when speaking to humans, there is no need to terminate ALL words if each stem has a default part-of-speech. For example, for basic nouns, the default part-of-speech would be NOUN; for stems that contain verb classifiers, the default part-of-speech would be VERB; for roots that are P-s by default, the default would be ADJECTIVE unless a verb classifier was used; for verbs formed from temporal or locative roots, the default would be ADVERB or CASE TAG; and so on. When terminators are used with ALL words, we will refer to it as the _high_ language. When terminators are dropped and defaults are assumed, we will refer to it as the _low_ language. Here are some examples: High Low Meaning ---- --- ------- teyomisi teyomi to study guafada guafa water guafapusi guafapu to water, add water to vastuno vastu seven menadope menado locative 'from' Not that, when a verb classifier follows a noun classifier the word becomes a verb by default. Note also that when locative concepts are used with verb classifiers, they remain adverbs or case tags by default. Finally, it is important to emphasize that the low language can never be used when speaking to computers, since computers will not be able to determine word boundaries. The low language can only be used when speaking to people. 13.0 ARTICLES Articles are used to indicate whether or not a noun has a specific referent. The definite article implies a specific referent, and corresponds to the English word "the". The indefinite article indicates a non-specific referent and corresponds to the English words "a/an". For example, in the sentence "John needs A pencil", the listener does not assume that John needs a particular pencil - any pencil will do. However, in the sentence "John needs THE pencil", the listener assumes that the speaker is referring to a specific pencil. Not all languages have unique words to represent articles (e.g. Chinese). When articles are not available in a language, word order (e.g. Russian) or verb-marking (e.g. Swahili) can sometimes distinguish between definiteness and indefiniteness. More often, though, the number 'one' is used to represent the English words "a/an" (e.g. French), and a word meaning 'that' is used to represent English "the" (e.g. Indonesian). In fact, in most (and perhaps all) languages that have them, articles are simply phonologically reduced or 'degenerate' forms of the same words meaning 'one' and 'that'. For example, the English word "the" derives from the old English word for 'that', and the words "a/an" derive from the old English word meaning 'one'. In light of the above, we can implement articles in either of two ways: 1. Use the word for 'one' for the indefinite article, and the word for demonstrative 'that' for the definite article. 2. Create phonologically reduced forms of the words for 'one' and 'that'. Now, phonologically reduced forms are really not compatible with the system we are using (nor are they compatible with my own personal tastes). However, we can do something very similar by instead allocating particles for the definite and indefinite articles. Here are possible particle versions of the 2nd+3rd person demonstrative (unspecified number) 'that' and the number 'one': 'that' = "fampuno" -> 'the' = "puka" 'one' = "feno" -> 'a/an' = "feka" We'll see later how a similar technique can be used to create colloquial expressions, insults, and even foul language. Keep in mind that a particle is not semantically compositional. Its meaning must always be determined by a dictionary look-up. However, the components of a particle may be used for their mnemonic value. Another possibility would be to use the 1+2+3 demonstratives for the definite articles. Cambodian does something very similar to this. It has a word that can mean either 'this/these' or 'that/those', and corresponds exactly to the word "pompuno" in the sample language. It is normally translated as 'the'. In the sample language, we will NOT assign particles for articles. Instead, we will use "pompuno" to emphasize definiteness and "feno" to emphasize indefiniteness. 14.0 COMPARATIVES Unlike basic verbs, comparatives do not represent true states or actions. Instead, they indicate the RELATIVE magnitudes of two or more states or the RELATIVE quantities of two or more entities. In a sense, they are somewhat like deictics, since they do not represent exact states or entities. Unlike deictics, though, they do not index or point to exact states or entities. Instead, they simply position one referent with respect to another along a one-dimensional scale: John John John John John is is is is is least less happy more most happy happy happy happy | | | | | V V V V V o-----------o-----------o-----------o-----------o Absolute Absolute Minimum Maximum Now, the interpretation of comparatives will depend on the nature of what is being compared. Earlier, when we discussed counts and measures, we made an important distinction between counts which were explicitly linked to an argument of the verb, and those which were not linked, but which modified the verb directly. Thus, a P-s adverb had the meaning 'being N in quantity' when it linked to a noun, while the verb-modifying "0" form had the meaning 'being N in frequency'. Comparatives behave in the same way. However, count words have specific numeric values, whereas comparatives have the very vague meaning of 'relative magnitude'. Thus, when a count modifies a verb, it can only indicate a frequency; i.e. a number or a count of discrete events. A comparative, however, can be interpreted as either degree, duration, or frequency. Consider the following examples: degree -> Fish stinks more than beef. duration -> John studied more than Bill. frequency -> He complained more than I did. Note, though, that these are the most likely interpretations in English, and can change depending on context. Also, when necessary, it is possible to explicitly indicate the desired interpretation: degree -> Fish stinks stronger than beef. duration -> Fish stinks longer than beef. frequency -> Fish stinks more often than beef. degree -> John studied harder than Bill. duration -> John studied longer than Bill. frequency -> John studied more frequently than Bill. degree -> He complained more vehemently than I did. duration -> He complained longer than I did. frequency -> He complained more often than I did. And yet, when you look more closely, the most likely "more than" default interpretation actually includes all three non-default interpretations. For example, the sentence "John studied more than Bill" could be interpreted as "John studied harder, longer, and/or more frequently than Bill". In other words, when a "more than" comparative is used with verbs, it can indicate any or all of the three concepts of 'degree', 'duration', or 'frequency'. However, the nature of the verb and the context in which it is used may favor one interpretation more than another. The nature of the verb probably has the strongest effect on the most likely interpretation. Here are some examples: Degree -> all non-agentive "-s" and "-d" verbs: P-s to suffer John suffered more than Bill. P/F-s to love John loves Marie more than Bill. P-d to heal John healed more than Bill. P/F-d to remember John remembered his dad more than Bill. Duration -> agentive "-s" verbs: AP-s to jog John jogged more than Bill. A/P-s to hold John held the baby more than Bill. AP/F-s to read John read more than Bill. Frequency -> agentive "-d" verbs and all "-p" verbs: A/P-d to break John broke dishes more than Bill. AP/F-d to escape John escaped the prison more than Bill. A-p to complain John complained more than Bill. A/P-p to kick at John kicked at the box more than Bill. Keep in mind, though, that the above are the most likely interpretations, but they are not exclusive. For example, the AP-s verb "to jog", as in "John jogged more than Bill", can be interpreted as either duration or frequency, depending on context. Natural languages implement comparative constructions in several different ways. Here are some examples of the major types: 1. The 'from' comparative (e.g. Classical Arabic, Hindi, Japanese, Eskimo, Quechua, Turkish, Burmese) A horse is big FROM a mouse. = A horse is bigger than a mouse. (In these constructions, "from" is the same word or affix used in a sentence such as "He drove FROM Boston to New York".) 2. The 'to' comparative (e.g. Breton, Maasai, not very common) A horse is big TO a mouse. = A horse is bigger than a mouse. (In these constructions, "to" is the same word or affix used in a sentence such as "He drove from Boston TO New York".) 3. The 'more' plus 'on' comparative (e.g. Navaho, Tamil, not very common) A horse is MORE big ON a mouse. = A horse is bigger than a mouse. (In these constructions, "on" is the same word or affix used in a sentence such as "He put the book ON the table".) 4. Comparatives that use opposites or negatives (e.g. Motu, Dakota, Samoan, Nahuatl. This method is very common, but is limited to relatively obscure languages.) A horse is big, a mouse is not big. OR A horse is big, a mouse is small. = A horse is bigger than a mouse. 5. Comparatives formed from verbs meaning 'to be more in degree', 'to be equal in degree', and 'to be less in degree' (e.g. Chinese, Hausa, Swahili, Vietnamese, Yoruba, Cambodian) A horse is big SURPASSING a mouse. = A horse is bigger than a mouse. 6. Comparatives that use special particles (e.g. Hungarian, Russian, Malagasy, English, Basque, Javanese. A large majority of the languages in this group are European.) English: A horse is bigger THAN a mouse. Javanese: A horse is big THAN a mouse. The first three methods are essentially metaphoric or idiosyncratic, and I will say no more about them. The fourth method does not require any special treatment, since it simply juxtaposes simple clauses. The fifth and sixth methods, however, do require separate discussion. And since these last two methods are used by most of the world's major languages, I will discuss each of them in detail. In designing your AL, you can use either or both. 14.1 VERBAL COMPARATIVES Comparatives derived from basic verbs are extremely productive, allowing every possible kind of comparison using regular morphosyntax and straightforward semantics. Thus, it is more versatile than the other methods. But the method has its price - a greater number of forms must be learned by the student. Also, since this method is verb-oriented, it is very easy to implement in the system we are using here. However, this method, although common among the languages of the world, is not used by the European languages. Thus, it may seem somewhat odd to speakers of European languages. As we stated above, comparatives simply position one referent with respect to another along a one-dimensional scale. In other words, comparatives perform a function that is similar to the scalar polarity MCMs we discussed earlier. However, the scalar polarity MCMs do not COMPARE two entities - they simply select a position on a pre-defined scale. Thus, we need something that is inherently comparative. Earlier in this monograph, we discussed how the scalar polarity morphemes are inherently comparative when focused. Here they are again: -ge- more than -kapsu- same amount as, same quantity as, just as much/many as -so- less, fewer than However, these MCMs are P/F-s by default. For comparatives, we will typically use the 0/F class (classifier = "-jo-"), since we may not always want to link to the patient of the sentence. Here are the results in verb form: gejosi to be or do more in degree than kapsujosi to be or do equal in degree as sojosi to be or do less in degree than Note that the paraphrase "be or do" is intentionally vague, which is why we need the 0/F class. To handle the concepts 'most' and 'least', we use the 'maximal' MCM "-pi-" and the 'minimal' MCM "-ju-": pijosi to be or do most in degree among jujosi to be or do least in degree among We can also use other classifiers to create different verbs. For example, the P/F-s "gesi = gemasi" corresponds in meaning to the English verbs "to surpass" or "to exceed". In the following examples, I will illustrate how to use the above five basic verbs and their derivatives in a large number of comparative constructions, using English syntax. For adverbial forms, I will use the "0" verb class we discussed earlier (classifier = "-la-"). Let's start with some simple examples: 1. John is taller than Bill. = John is_tall gejope Bill. [where "is_tall" is a P-s verb] [A good paraphrase for "gejope" is 'to a greater degree than' or 'more-so than'.] 2. John is as tall as Bill. = John is_tall kapsujope Bill. [A good paraphrase for "kapsujope" is 'to a degree equal to' or 'to the same degree as'. If we need the sense of 'about/approximately as tall as', we can use "lojope" instead of "kapsujope", where the verb "losi = lomasi" means 'to be similar to'.] 3. John is less tall than Bill. = John is_tall sojope Bill. [A good paraphrase for "sojope" is 'to a lesser degree than' or 'less-so than'.] 4. John is not as tall as Bill. = John is_tall sojope Bill. 5. John is not the same height as Bill. = John is_tall kapsunajope Bill. ["-na-" = 'not'] [A good paraphrase for "kapsunajope" is 'to a degree not equal to' or 'to a different degree than'.] Compare the semantics and surface forms of 3, 4, and 5. English is confusing here, since "not as tall as" actually means 'shorter than'. The periphrastic form "not the same height as" must be used to obtain a true 'not' sense. Actually, "kapsujope" will probably not be very useful when comparing scalar states, because a focused version of the state verb is more efficient and has the same meaning. For example, number 2 above can be implemented as "John is_tall Bill", where "is_tall" is a P/F-s verb. Here, the focus is simply elaborating the state (cf. "John is_tall 6 feet"). In cases like these, we can also apply the other polarity MCMs directly to the verb. Here's an example: The book hayusi = The book is heavy. ("hayusi" = P-s) The book hayumasi 4 pounds = The book weighs 4 pounds. ("hayumasi" = P/F-s) The book hayumagesi 4 pounds = The book weighs more than 4 pounds. The book hayumagesi the cup = The book is heavier than the cup. In other words, when the patient and focus of a scalar stative verb are being directly compared, we can affix the polarity morpheme to the verb rather than use a separate comparative word. Here are some more examples using external comparative words: 6. John is the tallest of the three brothers. = John is_tall pijope the three brothers. [A good paraphrase for "pijope" is 'to the greatest degree among'.] 7. John is the tallest student in the class. = John is_tall pijope students in the class. 8. John is more quiet than shy. = John is_quiet gejope (he) is_shy. OR = John's quietness gesi (his) shyness. [where "gesi = gemasi" = 'to exceed' or 'to surpass'.] In 8, "gejope" corresponds exactly to the English phrase "more than". And, like the English counterpart, the exact linkage can be ambiguous if the verb has more than one argument: 9. John helps Bill more than Mike. = John helps Bill gejope Mike. In 9, it's not clear whether "gejope" links to "John" or to "Bill". The English "more than" is equally ambiguous. We can, however, resolve the ambiguity by using complete embedded sentences, just as English does: 10a. John helps Bill more than he helps Mike. = John helps Bill gejope he helps Mike. 11a. John helps Bill more than Mike does. = John helps Bill gejope Mike does. In our sample language, we also have the option of using specific AP/F-s or P/F-s forms: 10b. John helps Bill more than he helps Mike. = John helps Bill gepe Mike. ("gepe = gemape" = P/F-s) [Here, Bill experiences a greater degree of 'help' than Mike.] 11b. John helps Bill more than Mike does. = John helps Bill gefipe Mike. ("gefipe" = AP/F-s) [Here, John acts to a greater degree than Mike.] More often though, use of "gejope" is not ambiguous since the context allows only one reasonable interpretation: 12. Kids join gangs in Boston more than in Cowtown. = Kids join gangs in Boston gejope Cowtown. There is no ambiguity here because a comparative MUST compare entities that are COMPARABLE. Since the argument of "gejope" is "Cowtown", it makes no sense to compare it with "kids" or "gangs". The only possible link is to "Boston". 13a. John reads novels more than Bill. = John reads novels gejope Bill. Here, the implication is that John spends more time reading novels than Bill does. If we want to compare the time spent reading novels versus, say, short stories, we would do this: 13b. John reads novels gejope short stories. = John spends more time reading novels than time spent reading short stories. If we want to indicate the relative NUMBER of novels read, we do the following in English: 14a. John reads more novels than short stories. But how do we do this in our sample language? When we discussed counts and measures, we made an important distinction between counts which were explicitly linked to an argument of the verb, and those which were not linked, but which modified the verb directly. Thus, a P-s adverb had the meaning 'being N in quantity' when it linked to a countable noun, while the verb-modifying "0" form had the meaning 'being N in frequency'. We can solve our problem by applying the same reasoning to comparatives; i.e. by directly modifying the noun rather than the verb. The most direct way to link the comparative directly to an argument rather than to the verb is to use an open adjective form: 14b. John reads more novels than short stories. = John reads novels gejobie short stories. Note that we also could have used the P/F-s form "gebie" with exactly the same meaning. A good paraphrase of "gebie" is 'in greater quantity/amount than'. In other words, since an open adjective modifies nouns rather than verbs, it implies 'quantity' rather than 'degree', 'duration', or 'frequency' when linking countable nouns. Also, by using an open adjective, there is never any ambiguity about which arguments are being compared, because an open adjective always links to a specific noun if the syntax is not ambiguous. Now, how do we represent the following? 15a. John reads more novels than Bill. Here, we are comparing the number of novels that John reads with the number of novels that Bill reads. And since items compared must be comparable, we cannot say: 15b. John reads more novels than Bill. = *John reads novels gebie Bill. The 15b translation implies that the novels read by John outnumber a quantity represented by the noun "Bill", which is gibberish. It makes no sense to compare novels with humans. Thus, what we need is this: 15c. John reads more novels than Bill. = John reads novels gebie novels which Bill reads. = John reads novels gebie Bill's. Here, "Bill's" is the genitive noun formed with the CCM "-xa-", which we discussed earlier. It could also be expressed as "novels mabie Bill", where "mabie" is the generic P/F-s open adjective. Another possibility would be to use "X mabie Bill", where "X" is an anaphor for the first occurance of "novels". [I'll have more to say about anaphora later.] It is also possible to have a 'degree' interpretation for nouns, but these will always be stative constructions, and will use the case tag "gejope": 16. John is more of a fighter than Bill. = John is a fighter gejope Bill. 17. John is more of a whiner than a fighter. = John is a whiner gejope a fighter. Note that 16 and 17 are not ambiguous because "gejope" can only link to an argument of the verb that is comparable to ITS argument. Thus, "John" and "Bill" are being compared in 16, while "whiner" and "fighter" are being compared in 17. Now, let's look at some different kinds of comparative constructions: 18. John likes taller girls than Louise. = John likes girls that are_tall gejope Louise. 19a. John likes taller girls than Bill. = John likes girls that are_tall gejope girls that Bill likes. Here, our sample language must resort to using relative clauses, just as we used embedded sentences in examples 10a and 11a. However, English constructions like 18 and 19a are almost always ambiguous, as in: John knows wealthier people than Bill. which can have two meanings: John knows people who are wealthier than Bill. John knows people who are wealthier than the people Bill knows. Note, though, that 18 and 19a ARE ambiguous, if you look closely enough. The sexual differences simply make one interpretation much more likely than the other. Ambiguities like these must be resolved by using relative clauses in both English and our sample language. However, as we did with 15 above, we can make 19a more efficient using a genitive/associative construction: 19b. John likes taller girls than Bill. = John likes girls that are_tall gejope Bill's. Now, let's look at some different kinds of examples: 20. Few people eat as much as John. = Few people eat kapsujope or gejope John. Here, English "as much as" actually means "as much or more than". You could also state this as "Most people eat less than John". Even better, we can use the single word "sonajope" meaning 'not less than' = 'the same or more than'. [Incidentally, inherently numeric words such as "few", "all", "most", "a majority of", "almost none/all", etc. are examples of the non-specific count words we discussed in the section on counts and measures, and they should be created in the same way. Even the word "most", as in "Most dogs bark" is a quantifier meaning 'more than half' - it is NOT a comparative!] Here's an example where quantity is obvious: 21. John broke more windows than Bill. = *John broke windows gejope Bill's. = John broke windows gebie Bill's. Note that the case tag "gejope" cannot be used here, since it always modifies the verb. Since we are simply comparing countable items, the open adjective must be used. Now, let's look at some really tough ones: 22. The more he complains, the louder they play the music. = They play the music loud gelape when/if he complains gelape. Here, "-la-" is the "0" verb classifier, creating an adverb that directly modifies the verb. It can be best paraphrased as 'to a greater degree'. Here's another one: 23. The more I study, the less I know. = I know solape when/if I study gelape. Here, "solape" can be paraphrased as 'to a lesser degree'. 24. The fewer friends we have, the lonelier we are. = We are_lonely gelape when we have sono friends. Here, "sono" is the numeric adjective meaning 'fewer' or 'less'. 25. He is most happy when he is well fed. = He is_happy pilape when he is well fed. What's nice about "-la-" adverbs is that we never have to resort to relative clauses because we never specify either of the two entities or events being compared. As always, of course, we can use more specific forms (e.g. P-s) if needed. 26. John had more money than Bill thought (he had). = John had money gejobie what Bill thought (he had). 27. John baked more pies than Bill told him to (bake). = John baked pies gejobie what Bill told him to (bake). Later on in this monograph, we'll discuss how to derive words like "what" in the above sentences. Here are some more examples: 28a. More people stayed late than left early. = People that stayed late gesi people that left early. A sentence like the above would probably use an anaphor such as "those", referring to an earlier word such as "guest", "visitor", etc., rather than repeating the word "people". Another possibility is: 28b. More people stayed late than left early. = People stayed late gejope people left early. Here, we are really comparing degree rather than quantity, but the final meaning is essentially the same. A better English translation would be something like "People stayed late to a greater extent than people left early". In other words, we are comparing the 'stay late' event with the 'leave early' event. A third possibility would be to use the P/F-s verb form: 28c. More people stayed late than left early. = People stayed late gepe people who left early. By using the P/F-s form, we are directly linking to the patient of the main verb, rather than directly modifying the verb. Thus, by directly linking to a countable noun, this construction compares quantity rather than frequency. 29. More than ten people showed up. = Daigeno people showed up. In 29, "daigeno" is a simple numeric adjective. 30. I ate more because I was still hungry. = I ate geda because I was still hungry. In 30, the noun "geda" can only indicate quantity. If we wished to indicate degree, we would have to use the adverb "gelape". 31. John called Bill more than 10 times yesterday. = John called Bill daigelape yesterday. Here, "daigelape" is a simple numeric adverb. If we wished to represent the meaning 'exactly ten times', we would use "dailape". If we wished to represent the meaning 'ten more times', we would use "gedailape". The following are relatively straightforward: 32. John wants a longer report than this. = John wants a report which is_long gejope this. 33. John can run faster than Bill. = John can run fast gejope Bill. 34. You can buy a less expensive car here than at other dealers. = You can buy a car that is_expensive at here sojope at other dealers. [Note above that "here" will have to be in its noun form.] 35. You can buy a less expensive car here. = You can buy a car that is_expensive solape here. [Note above that "here" is an adverb.] 36. Here is a less expensive car. = Here_is a car which is_expensive solape. 37. John has more reason to like her than Bill does. = John's reason for liking her gesi Bill's. OR = (Why John likes her) gesi (Why Bill does). Previous-word modifying forms can also be useful if we need to be specific in our comparisons of adverbial concepts. Consider the following example: 38a. John can kick a football far gejope Bill. Since "gejope" is inherently vague, 38a has three possible interpretations: degree: John can kick a football farther than Bill. duration: John can kick a football far, over a longer period of time than Bill. frequency: John can kick a football far, more often than Bill. We can be more specific by using a previous-word form and opening up its argument structure (terminator = "-nia-"), as in the following examples: 38b. John can kick a football farther than Bill. = John can kick a football far gejonia Bill. 38c. John can kick a football far, over a longer period of time than Bill. = John can kick a football far long gejonia Bill. [Here, "long" is an adverb indicating temporal duration.] 38d. John can kick a football far, more often than Bill. = John can kick a football far often gejonia Bill. I believe that the above examples cover just about any kind of comparative construction that you're likely to run into. I decided to use such a large number of examples because natural languages can be extremely idiosyncratic in the way that they implement comparatives, especially the more complicated constructions. An exhaustive analysis should (hopefully) make it less likely that an AL designer will adopt a system that is simply a clone of his natural language. Now, many (and perhaps most) of the languages of the world do not make a distinction between comparative and superlative. Instead, they generally rely on context or emphasis when needed. For example, note how the uses of "more" and "most" are mutually exclusive in the following English sentences: *He is the more disgusting person in the choir. *He is the most disgusting one of the twins. If you wish to emulate languages that do not make this distinction, you can start with three words instead of five as we did here. For example, you could use "gejope" in place of both "pijope" and "gejope", and "sojope" in place of both "jujope" and "sojope". Here are two examples using this approach: You can buy a less expensive car here. = You can buy A car which is_expensive solape here. You can buy the least expensive car here. = You can buy THE car which is_expensive solape here. Note the different uses of the articles "A" and "THE". Some natural languages (e.g. French) use this same approach to differentiate between comparative and superlative. Finally, in many cases, it may be easier to apply the scalar polarity MCMs directly to the word being modified, as we mentioned earlier. Here are some more examples using the word "xauno", meaning 'hot': xaugeno = hotter xaugebie = hotter than xausono = less hot xausobie = not as hot as xaupino = the hottest xaujuno = the least hot And so on. 14.2 PARTICLE COMPARATIVES As we saw above, verbal comparatives are quite productive and fit in well with the lexical/semantic system being proposed here. They do, however, have a serious disadvantage. Different morphological forms of a comparative must be used in different syntactic environments. Thus, for example, the single concept 'more' is represented by several different words depending on what is being compared (e.g. "gejope", "gesi", "gejonia", "gejobie", etc.). A particle, however, does not change its form and will have a precisely defined scope. As we will see, though, particle comparatives are only slightly less productive and do not suffer the disadvantage of verbal comparatives. In order to get an idea of how to most effectively implement particle comparatives, let's look at a few examples that vary only slightly, and see if we can make some generalizations about them (I will use parentheses plus the particle "more" to show which item is greater in quantity or degree): John reads novels more than Bill. John (more reads) novels vs. Bill reads novels i.e., different verbs, different subjects, same objects John reads more novels than Bill. John reads (more novels) vs. Bill reads novels i.e., same verbs, different subjects, different objects John reads novels more than short stories. John (more reads) novels vs. John reads short stories i.e., different verbs, same subjects, different objects John reads more novels than short stories. John reads (more novels) vs. John reads short stories i.e., same verbs, same subjects, different objects It seems that there are three constituents (verb, subject, and object) which can have either of two values (same or different). This suggests that there could be up to eight possible combinations. Here is a list of all of the possibilities: 1. same verb, same subject, same object This is not a comparison since nothing is different. 2. same verb, same subject, different object John reads more novels than short stories. John reads (more novels) vs. John reads short stories 3. same verb, different subject, same object More women read novels than men. (more women) read novels vs. men read novels 4. same verb, different subject, different object John reads more novels than Bill. John reads (more novels) vs. Bill reads novels 5. different verb, same subject, same object John writes novels more than he reads them. John (more writes) novels vs. John reads novels 6. different verb, same subject, different object John reads novels more than short stories. John (more reads) novels vs. John reads short stories 7. different verb, different subject, same object John reads novels more than Bill. John (more reads) novels vs. Bill reads novels 8. different verb, different subject, different object John reads novels more than Bill writes short stories. John (more reads) novels vs. Bill writes short stories. OR John reads more novels than Bill writes short stories. John reads (more novels) vs. Bill writes short stories. Note, though, that we are really comparing only two items: a component of two sentences, plus the two sentences themselves. In order to deal unambiguously with all possible combinations, I suggest the following simple rules: a. When there is a difference in only one constituent, link the two items being compared with the single compound expression "more than". In other words, use "more than" in the same way as you would use a simple conjunction. b. When there is a difference in two or three constituents, apply the particle "more" to the item which is greater in magnitude, and link the two contrasting items with the "than" particle. In other words, use "more" like a modifier and use "than" like a conjunction. (Since our sample language uses English word order, the particle "more" will PRECEDE the item it applies to. The particle "than" will be placed BETWEEN the two items it links.) Rule (a) applies to examples 2, 3, and 5: 2. same verb, same subject, different object John reads more novels than short stories. John reads (more novels) vs. John reads short stories = John reads novels more-than short stories. 3. same verb, different subject, same object More women read novels than men. (more women) read novels vs. men read novels = Women more-than men read novels. 5. different verb, same subject, same object John writes novels more than he reads them. John (more writes) novels vs. John reads novels = John writes more-than reads novels. Rule (b) applies to examples 4, 6, 7, and 8: 4. same verb, different subject, different object John reads more novels than Bill. John reads (more novels) vs. Bill reads novels = John than Bill reads more novels. 6. different verb, same subject, different object John reads novels more than short stories. John (more reads) novels vs. John reads short stories = John more reads novels than short stories. 7. different verb, different subject, same object John reads novels more than Bill. John (more reads) novels vs. Bill reads novels = John than Bill more reads novels. 8. different verb, different subject, different object John reads novels more than Bill writes short stories. John (more reads) novels vs. Bill writes short stories. = John more reads novels than Bill writes short stories. OR John reads more novels than Bill writes short stories. John reads (more novels) vs. Bill writes short stories. = John reads more novels than Bill writes short stories. Note that when "more" modifies a countable noun, such as "novels", it indicates quantity. When it modifies a verb such as "reads", it indicates degree, duration, or frequency. Also note that (8) can never be ambiguous. In the first example, "more" modifies "reads", while "than" appears to link with "Bill". However, since a verb cannot be compared with a noun, "than" actually marks the entire clause that follows it. The same logic applies to the second example. In effect, the verb is the head of its clause. This would be obvious if the word order of the sample language were VSO or SOV instead of SVO. Now, let's see if we can apply the rule to oblique expressions: 1. John needs more money in Boston than in New York. John needs (more money) in Boston vs. John needs money in New York = John needs more money in Boston than New York. 2. John needs money more in Boston than in New York. OR John needs money in Boston more than in New York. John (more needs) money in Boston vs. John needs money in New York = John more needs money in Boston than New York. 3. John needs more money for a van than for a car. John needs (more money) for a van vs. John needs money for a car = John needs more money for a van than car. 4. John needs money more for a van than for a car. John (more needs) money for a van vs. John needs money for a car = John more needs money for a van than car. 5. John needed more money for a car than Bill needed. John needed (more money) for a car vs. Bill needed money for a car = John than Bill needed more money for a car. 6. John needed money for a car more than Bill needed money for a car. John (more needed) money for a car vs. Bill needed money for a car = John than Bill more needed money for a car. Note in all of the above, that the case tags "in" and "for", and the article "a" were not repeated. They could have been included without changing the meaning but would have been redundant. Thus, 4 could have been written "John more needs money for a van than FOR A car" or "John more needs money for a van than A car". Next, let's see if we can deal easily with adverbs: 7. John can run faster than Bill. John can run (more fast) vs. Bill can run fast = John than Bill can run more fast. 8. John can run fast more than Bill. John (more can) run fast vs. Bill can run fast = John than Bill more can run fast. OR John can (more run) fast vs. Bill can run fast = John than Bill can more run fast. 9. John can kick a football farther than Bill. 'far' which John can kick > 'far' which Bill can kick (first word = "far", 2nd difference = "Bill") = John can kick a football more far than Bill. Will this approach work for superlatives? Let's try: 10. John is the tallest student in the class. John (most is_tall) vs. students in the class are_tall [Note that we are using the P-s verb meaning 'to be tall'.] = John than students in the class most is_tall. Keep in mind, though, that "more" can also be used here in place of "most" with the same meaning. Thus, we can also say "John than students in the class MORE is_tall". As I stated earlier, many languages do not make a distinction between comparative and superlative. Now, how do we represent these particles? Particles are closed-class words, they are invariant in form, and they are small in number. They rarely, if ever, undergo further derivation. Because of this, I feel that it would be best to assign forms to particles by using the particle terminator "-ka". For the comparative particles, I will arbitrarily create the following words: taka 'than' geka 'more' pika 'most' kapsuka 'as much/many as' soka 'less' juka 'least' We will also allow the following abbreviated forms: getaka = "geka taka" 'more than' pitaka = "pika taka" 'the most among' kapsutaka = "kapsuka taka" 'as much/many as' sotaka = "soka taka" 'less than' jutaka = "juka taka" 'the least among' Now, let's apply these particles to all of the sample sentences that we used with verbal comparatives. To save space and time, I will only provide detailed analyses for the more difficult examples: 1. John is taller than Bill. = John taka Bill geka is_tall. 2. John is as tall as Bill. = John taka Bill kapsuka is_tall. [Here, "taka...kapsuka" corresponds to English "as..as".] 3. John is less tall than Bill. = John taka Bill soka is_tall. 4. John is not as tall as Bill = John is less tall than Bill. = John taka Bill soka is_tall. 5. John is not the same height as Bill. = John taka Bill not kapsuka is_tall. [We'll derive the word meaning 'not' later, when we discuss _modality_.] 6. John is the tallest of the three brothers. = John taka the three brothers pika is_tall. 7. John is the tallest student in the class. = John taka students in the class pika is_tall. 8. John is more quiet than shy. = John is_quiet geka taka is_shy. = John is_quiet getaka is_shy. 9. John helps Bill more than Mike. The inherent ambiguity of this sentence cannot be represented using particle comparatives. To capture the ambiguity, you must use the verbal comparative "gejope". 10. John helps Bill more than he helps Mike. = John geka helps Bill taka Mike. 11. John helps Bill more than Mike does. = John taka Mike geka helps Bill. 12. Kids join gangs in Boston more than in Cowtown. = Kids geka join gangs in Boston taka Cowtown. 13a. John reads novels more than Bill. = John taka Bill geka reads novels. 13b. John reads novels more than short stories. = John geka reads novels taka short stories. 14. John reads more novels than short stories. = John reads novels geka taka short stories. = John reads novels getaka short stories. 15. John reads more novels than Bill. = John taka Bill reads geka novels. 16. John is more of a fighter than Bill. = John taka Bill geka is a fighter. 17. John is more of a whiner than a fighter. = John geka is a whiner taka fighter. OR John is geka a whiner taka a fighter. [BUT NOT "John is a whiner geka taka fighter". This is because "is a whiner" and "a whiner" are not countable, while "whiner" and "fighter" ARE countable. Thus, if we use the third form, we are saying that John is somehow equal to a quantity of whiners and fighters, with whiners outnumbering fighters.] 18. John likes taller girls than Louise. John likes (more tall) girls vs. John likes Louise = John likes geka tall girls taka Louise. 19. John likes taller girls than Bill. John likes (more tall) girls vs. Bill likes tall girls = John taka Bill likes geka tall girls. 20. Few people eat as much as John. Few people (as much or more eat) vs. John eats = Few people taka John kapsuka or geka eat. 21. John broke more windows than Bill. = John taka Bill broke geka windows. 22. The more he complains, the louder they play the music. he (more complains) vs. unspecified AND they play the music (more loud) vs. unspecified = They play the music geka loud when he geka complains. 23. The more I study, the less I know. = I soka know when I geka study. <- emphasizes degree = I know soka da when I study geka da. <- emphasizes quantity [The completely generic noun "da" can be paraphrased here as "things". In our sample language, "soka" cannot stand alone - it must modify something.] 24. The fewer friends we have, the lonelier we are. = We geka are_lonely when we have soka friends. 25. He is most happy when he is well fed. = He pika is_happy when he is well fed. 26. John had more money than Bill thought (he had). John had (more money) vs. John had money that Bill thought he had = John had money geka taka what Bill thought (he had). = John had money getaka what Bill thought (he had). 27. John baked more pies than Bill told him to (bake). = John baked pies geka taka what Bill told him to (bake). = John baked pies getaka what Bill told him to (bake). 28. More people stayed late than left early. (more people) stayed late vs. people left early = Geka people stayed late taka left early. 29. More than ten people showed up. = Geka ten people showed up. 30. I ate more because I was still hungry. = I geka ate because I was still hungry. <- emphasizes degree OR I ate geka da because I was still hungry. <- emphasizes quantity 31. John called Bill more than ten times yesterday. = John called Bill geka ten times yesterday. [Here, "ten times" is the numeric adverb "dailape". We can also use the single word "daigelape" instead of "geka dailape".] 32. John wanted a longer report than this. John wanted a (more long) report vs. John wanted this report = John wanted a long geka taka this report. = John wanted a long getaka this report. [In the above example, "this" is the deictic adjective "mimpano". You can paraphrase it as "John wanted a more-long-than-this report.] OR John wanted a report which taka this geka is_long. [In the above example, "this" is the deictic noun "mimpada".] 33. John can run faster than Bill. = John taka Bill can run geka fast. 34. You can buy a less expensive car here than at other dealers. = You can buy soka expensive car here taka at other dealers. [In the above example, "here" is the adverb "mingupe" and "at" is the case tag "mepe".] 35. You can buy a less expensive car here. = You can buy a soka expensive car here. 36. Here is a less expensive car. = Here is a soka expensive car. 37. John has more reason to like her than Bill does. John (more has) reason vs. Bill has reason = John taka Bill geka has reason to like her. 38. He ate more than twice as much as I ate. = He ate geka twice what I ate. 39b. John can kick a football farther than Bill. = John taka Bill can kick a football geka far. 39c. John can kick a football far, over a longer period of time than Bill. = John taka Bill can kick a football far geka long. 39d. John can kick a football far, more often than Bill. = John taka Bill can kick a football far geka often. Note that in all the examples, "taka" can be paraphrased in English as "compared to" or "in comparison with". For superlatives, the paraphrase would be "among". As I mentioned at the beginning of this section, particle comparatives are slightly less flexible than verbal comparatives, but are likely to be easier to learn. However, I strongly feel that BOTH methods should be available for use in an AL. Students can learn to actually USE the form closest to their native language while learning to RECOGNIZE the other form. 14.3 UNFOCUSED COMPARATIVES Natural languages have several words which indicate degree or quantity relative to an IMPLIED referent. In other words, these words have an unspecified focus. Here are some English examples: Excessive degree: He is TOO happy now. Maximum degree: He is EXTREMELY/MOST happy now. High degree: He is QUITE/VERY happy now. Low degree: He is NOT TOO/SLIGHTLY/SOMEWHAT happy now. Minimum degree: He is HARDLY/BARELY happy now. Slightly less than unmarked degree: He is ALMOST/NOT QUITE happy now. Emphatic degree: He is DEFINITELY/ABSOLUTELY happy now. Emphatic zero degree: He is NOT happy AT ALL/WHATSOEVER now. Exclusive degree: He is JUST/ONLY happy. Note that the maximum, high, low, and minimum degrees are already represented by the scalar polarity MCMs. Additional MCMs can be created for the other degrees. The terminator can change depending on what the word modifies. For example, the 'high' and 'exclusive' degree words can have the following forms: -pe, Verb modifier: He studies VERY MUCH/A LOT. When she's here, he JUST studies. He's ONLY A poet (and nothing else). -no, Noun modifier: He is QUITE A poet. It's a SIGNIFICANT/GREAT achievement He's THE ONLY poet. -di, Previous-word modifier: He's a VERY happy person. He studies ONLY when she's here. [Note that, in English, these words precede the word they modify. In the sample language, "very" would follow "happy" and "only" would follow "when".] The actual implementation is quite straightforward, and I will not spend any more time on it here. 14.4 COMPARATIVE FACTORS AND DIFFERENCES We often make comparisons in which we specify the magnitude of the difference between the entities being compared. Consider the following: 1. The rope is longer than the stick. 2. The rope is half as long as the stick. 3. The rope is less than half as long as the stick. 4. The rope is three meters longer than the stick. Example (2) has a simple solution, if we paraphrase it: The rope lengamasi fevdeduno the stick. = The rope has the length of half of the stick. = The rope is half as long as the stick. where "lengamasi" is the P/F-s version of the verb meaning 'to be long', and "fevdeduno" is the numeric adjective meaning 'one-half'. We can also implement it using particle comparatives as: The rope taka fevdeduno the stick kapsuka is long. = Literally: The rope compared with half the stick is as long. = The rope is as long as half of the stick. = The rope is half as long as the stick. Example (3) also has two similar solutions: The rope lengamasosi fevdeduno the stick. = The rope has less length than half of the stick. = The rope is less than half as long as the stick. or, using particle comparatives: The rope taka fevdeduno the stick soka is long. = Literally: The rope compared with half the stick is less long. = The rope is less long than half of the stick. = The rope is less than half as long as the stick. But how do we handle (4), where the difference is not only additive, but also contains the unit of measure "meters"? Again, we have two simple solutions if we paraphrase the English: The rope lengamasi metada gezibie the stick. = The rope is as long as three-more-than-the-stick meters. = The rope is three meters longer than the stick. or, using particle comparatives: The rope lengamasi zino metada getaka the stick. = The rope is as long as three meters more than the stick. = The rope is three meters longer than the stick. where "gezibie" is the open adjective meaning 'three more than', and "metada" is the measure word meaning 'meter'. We can also easily add a comparative to the verb, creating a double comparative: The rope lengamagesi metada gezibie the stick. = The rope is longer than three-more-than-the-stick meters. = The rope is more than three meters longer than the stick. or, using particle comparatives: The rope lengamagesi zino metada getaka the stick. = The rope is longer than three meters more than the stick. = The rope is more than three meters longer than the stick. Note that all of the above can also be implemented using verbal comparatives. I will leave that task as an exercise for the interested reader. 15.0 DIMINUTIVES AND AUGMENTATIVES We've seen how useful the scalar polarity MCMs can be in deriving many new words. So far, though, we've only applied them to stative (i.e. verbal) concepts. Fortunately, they can be just as useful and productive when applied to nouns. In doing so, we will be creating words that are commonly known as _diminutives_ and _augmentatives_. As we mentioned earlier, when MCMs are applied to basic nouns, the root plus its basic classifier is treated as a single EFFECTIVE root, since the root by itself has only mnemonic value. Thus, in defining the semantics of diminutives and augmentatives, we must refer to the combination, rather than to the root by itself. For this reason, MCMs used to create augmentatives and diminutives will always follow the noun classifier. In my opinion, the best way to define the semantics of diminutives and augmentatives is as follows: When a polarity MCM is applied to a basic noun, it magnifies or reduces the SIZE, INTENSITY, or both of the entity, in proportions that are most natural or typical for the entity. When no polarity MCM is used, it indicates a generic or typical entity that may include all possible sizes and/or intensities. For easy reference, here are the scalar polarity MCMs again: -pi- 'maximally', 'extremely' -ge- 'very', 'highly' -so- 'not too', 'not very' -ju- 'minimally', 'barely', 'hardly'